Dog Cult Prays For Pit Bull That Mauled A Child

“Save Mickey.” So pleads the Facebook page lamenting that the pit bull faces “the death penalty” just because he mauled four-year-old Kevin Vicente.

The Phoenix, Arizona boy was hospitalized with a broken eye socket, check bone and lower jaw bone. “He still can’t open his eye,” said Dr. Salvatore Lettieri, chief of cosmetic surgery at Maricopa Medical Center.

“Well need to fix the tear duct drainage system,” said the surgeon. “That is, if he makes tears.”

Meanwhile, there are no tears shed for poor young Kevin on Mickey’s Facebook page, which announces that 50,000 people have signed a petition (on Change.org) imploring Maricopa County Animal Control to stay the canine martyr’s scheduled execution this upcoming Tuesday.

“Thank God,” read one of the comments on Mickey’s Facebook page, that so many people have registered their objection to what the online petition terms nothing less than a “travesty of justice.”

But the real travesty is the cult that has developed around Mickey, who brutalized a four-year old child. That the dog’s supporters dare to invoke the name of God in their campaign to absolve the animal of its horrific attack upon a defenseless child is a sacrilege.

Indeed, the Mickey cult actually created another Facebook page promoting the “Save Mickey Candlelight Vigil.” Cult members were invited to gather in a plaza “to show our love and support for Mickey.”

Those who couldn’t attend were encouraged to “light a candle,” wherever they happened to be, and “post the picture.” And many did so.

“Mickey, we’re praying for you sweetheart!” proclaimed one of the pit bull’s supporters. “We love you and are thinking of you Mickey,” commented another. “You are in our thoughts and prayers sweet Mickey,” posted still another.

Well, there’s nothing unGodly about having an affinity for animals. That is, unless that affinity is taken to the extreme, as is the case with the Mickey cult, which has elevated the dog to deity status.

Like the Hindus, who worship dogs as part of Kukur tithar, an annual religious festival during which a big red tika is put on a dog’s forehead and a garland around its neck as the faithful pray to dogs to protect their houses.

Like the ancient Mesopotamians, who created a dog cult around Gula, a supposed healing goddess. The dog was considered Gula’s earthly mediums, possessing protective magic and supposedly guarding cult members against certain sicknesses.

The thousands of Mickey supporters, who liked his Facebook pages, who signed his online petition, who attended his candlelight vigil, who are praying on his behalf for divine intervention, are a modern day dog cult.

They care more about the pit bull than they do about the helpless four-year-old boy he would have killed but by the grace of God.

“Having Mickey killed is not going to take away Kevin’s pain or injuries,” said John Schill, the dog’s attorney (that’s right). “The only thing this is going to do is kill a poor, innocent dog.”

Such is the callousness of Mickey’s supporters, who declare the dog “innocent” of his vicious attack on young Kevin. Their cultish adoration of the animal smells to heaven.

How interesting in light of this thread...

Are Modern People Morally Advanced?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3136382/posts

Clearly not when the life of a dog provokes more outcry than that of a human being.

Some folks just hate all ‘pitbulls’.

I can live with that.

What I find inexcusable though,
is the deliberate omission of facts when they post the story of an attack.

For example, the first FR posting of this story contained a big
~SNIP~
that happened to include this very important aspect of the attack...

“Kevin picked up a bone lying on the ground near the dog, which was kept on a chain.
That’s when Mickey suddenly attacked Kevin.”

This is information vital to understanding what happened
and to help prevent similar attacks, regardless of type/breed, from happening in the future.

I’m at a loss to find a rational reason for excluding it.
We can’t assume everyone is going to go to the link so why leave such salient information out?
Does the poster think it will take some of the responsibility for the attack away from the dog and they can’t abide that?

The fixated hatred for ‘pitbulls’ appears to trump some folks professed compassion for dog attack victims.

Similar to what I saw when dogsbite.org was provided with confirmed information that a dog they identified as a ‘pit bull’ was in fact a Yellow Lab. They refused to amend their report. How does publishing lies, misinformation and half truths while leaving out facts help prevent dog attacks?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.