Tag Archives: Mosaic law

Because Jews Hate Dogs

BBC has an article about a dog being sentenced to death by a rabbi in Jerusalem. Please remember this story the next time “Muslims hate dogs” comes up. Thank you.

Naturally, this story makes me heartily glad that we do not live in a theocracy (yet) here in the United States and with any luck we will continue to honor the wall of separation between church and state, so that blowhards who think we should kill orcas for “murder” will never hold sway over our country.

A Jewish rabbinical court condemned to death by stoning a stray dog it feared was the reincarnation of a lawyer who insulted its judges, reports say.

The dog entered the Jerusalem financial court several weeks ago and would not leave, reports Israeli website Ynet.

It reminded a judge of a curse passed on a now deceased secular lawyer about 20 years ago, when judges bid his spirit to enter the body of a dog.

The animal is said to have escaped before the sentence was carried out.

One of the judges at the court in the city’s ultra-Orthodox Mea Shearim neighbourhood had reportedly asked local children to carry out the sentence.

An animal welfare organisation filed a complaint with the police against a court official, who denied reports that judges had ordered the dog’s stoning, according to Ynet.

But a court manager told Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot the stoning had been ordered as “as an appropriate way to ‘get back at’ the spirit which entered the poor dog”, according to Ynet.

Dogs are considered impure animals in traditional Judaism.

Story here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13819764

Also, please stop voting for the kind of moronic lawmakers in the US who think shariah law is a fundamental threat to our country but that Jewish law is just fine and dandy. And that Indian tribal law is no biggie because who cares anyway?

Lawyers’ spirits don’t enter dogs, whether or not a judge orders them to. Also, dogs don’t live twenty years. Dogs should be judged by the content of their character, not the woo-woo proclamations of people who believe in ghosts. And stoning to death is extremely cruel. Are you fucking kidding me, people?

3 Comments

Filed under church and state, religious conflict, Stupidity

God’s Will Holds Sway in Court

Once again we’re traveling to a backwards land where the inhabitants don’t enjoy the separation of church and state. The bronze age denizens here consulted their terrifying holy book in deciding the fate of man accused of murder during a robbery, admittedly a heinous crime.

The brave folks at Amnesty International ventured to that benighted realm to investigate and shine the light of truth on the situation.

After the trial, evidence emerged that jurors had consulted the Bible during their sentencing deliberations. At a hearing in June 1999, four of the jurors recalled that several Bibles had been present and highlighted passages had been passed around.

One juror had read aloud from the Bible to a group of fellow jurors, including the passage, “And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death”.

The judge ruled that the jury had not acted improperly and this was upheld by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

In 2002, a Danish journalist interviewed a fifth juror. The latter said that “about 80 per cent” of the jurors had “brought scripture into the deliberation”, and that the jurors had consulted the Bible “long before we ever reached a verdict”.

He told the journalist he believed “the Bible is truth from page 1 to the last page”, and that if civil law and biblical law were in conflict, the latter should prevail. He said that if he had been told he could not consult the Bible, “I would have left the courtroom”. He described himself as a death penalty supporter, saying life imprisonment was a “burden” on the taxpayer.

In 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the jurors had “crossed an important line” by consulting specific passages in the Bible that described the very facts at issue in the case. This amounted to an “external influence” on the jury prohibited under the US Constitution.

Leave a comment

Filed under church and state