Posted on 11/30/2004 9:22:31 AM PST by GSWarrior
PROVO, Utah (AP) -- The truth about cats and dogs in this city is that they aren't allowed to live in the same house. But that's about to change.
Current city law allows residents to own up to two dogs or two cats at the same time - but not a dog and a cat together. After getting complaints, the City Council is expected to change the law next month.
The problem was discovered when Susan Sewell and her family went to the Utah County Animal Shelter in Spanish Fork to adopt a kitten in August. The family already has a cat and a dog.
They chose a kitten and began filling out the adoption paperwork. But when shelter staff learned of their existing pets, the family was told they couldn't have the new animal because Provo only allowed residents to have cats or dogs, not cats and dogs.
"I know people can't be having five, six, seven animals running around," Sewell said. "But if you are a responsible pet owner, why limit it to two? If you have two dogs, your kid can't ever have a cat."
Agreed. I'm surprised Congress didn't think of it first.
Self-ping.
What about CATDOG??
That law makes sense. Have you ever been in a house with more than 6 women?
The first thing that came to mind was "Ghostbusters!"
I didn't mean this in a negative way. But the reality is that the LDS system of home teachers, visiting teachers, 12 year old priests showing up at the door to collect tithing and fast offerings, temple recommend interviews, tithing settlements, being expected to host missionaries for dinner, and generally being expected to follow bishops' and other authorities' instructions on a wide variety of daily life issues, etc. would be perceived as highly intrusive or "meddling" by most non-LDS. When you have a society which consists predominantly of people who are accustomed to this degree of people in "authority" overseeing their lives, you're not likely to get the same instinctive resistance to secular government passing meddlesome laws, that you would get in most other communities. It's similar to a thoroughly socialist or other theocratic society, in which people have become accustomed to accepting that the government will tell them what school their children will attend, what doctors they will see, what hours stores may be open, etc. Needless to say we have a degree of that across the U.S. But still, most Americans would be startled by the intrusiveness of the LDS Church on its members, just as they would be startled by some European countries' laws which permit stores to be open only one evening per week.
Your point is well taken, but I think most LDS members would consider these actions as caring and personal guidance by the church. The LDS church keeps better records of individual members than any other church organization I know of. So I guess while some would consider these actions "meddling," others, particularly the faithful LDS, consider the individual attention and instruction as "caring." I think that for an organization as big as the LDS church it would be hard to keep membership without the personal attention. I think that's what keeps so many "active."
I think there's actually a split among LDS members in their perception of this "meddling" vs. "caring", no doubt related to some extent to the tactics of the particular meddlers/carers in question. Plenty of people have left the LDS Church or become totally inactive because they were annoyed by the meddling. Others wouldn't dream of leaving because they'd miss all the caring. The structure does unfortunately provide ripe opportunity for people with a tendency toward judgementalism and officiousness to inflict their tendencies on others, while cloaking their actions as "Church duties", thus making it difficult for the victims to put a stop to it without leaving the Church.
I knew that gay marriage amendment thing wasn't going to work. Now my hamster can't live with that mouse, nor that wolf with the lion, nor the fish with the snake--drat it all!
I mostly agree with what you just said, although I think that a good church leader will know when to stop "pushing" and will realize when certain actions will just further alienate the individual. I think that with good communication, a medium can be reached between the offended member and the local leaders to "stop it" as you say, without the member having to leave the church altogether or choose absolutes. I think behind-the-scene efforts will likely continue, but I think there is a balance that can be acheived, although difficult for both parties (I think more so for the leaders).
I beg your pardon, but my newfie MISSY just LOVES her two cats! They love her, too. We just lost her boyfriend the cat to renal failure last month, those two used to just sit around and make out. Speaking of drool, newfies make living with St Bernard: Beethoven look easy!
---
Kitty Ping List alert!
[Freepmail me to get on or off the Kitty Ping List.]
Must have been a typing error when the law as typed up, no one would actually make such a stupid law.
bttt
That is *too* cute! :-)
Better make sure they're sterile, or they'll end up with cogs and dats.
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.