Recently, in Jerusalem, a judge sentenced a DOG to be stoned to death…. by local children.
The dog wandered into a financial court and would not leave. A judge recalled a curse that had been placed on a secular lawyer who insulted the court two decades prior. The curse was that the lawyer would come back as a dog. And therefore this dog that wandered in that courtroom most assuredly must be the cursed lawyer. 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.
I believe in reincarnation, but I also believe it is possible that the dog just wandered into the court room. Simple as that. And for that he deserves such a heinous death?
And even beyond this most inhumane method of killing, I am dumbfounded that the stoning would be ordered to be carried out by children. We work so hard with our youth to teach them to respect all life. This includes animals, yet this village wants its children to pick up stones and hurl them at a defenseless dog until he is dead?
I haven’t the words to explain which part of this story is the most upsetting to me. There is absolutely NOTHING in any of it that makes any sense.
The movie I mentioned is a true story. The Iranian village where this happened has tried to deny the incident since the world became aware of it. Since the story has circulated the globe, the judges in Jerusalem are now denying this sentence was ordered. And here’s why this may be true:
There must also be witnesses to the event. What event could the possessed dog, or the lawyer for that matter, have done to deserve death besides being secular—a crime not among the 18 professed crimes in rabbinic law punishable by death? Had the lawyer truly committed one of these crimes in his human state he would have been tried pre-dog transcendence.
What is among the 18 crimes is witchcraft and necromancy—cursing a dead man guilty of being a pest into the body of a dog most certainly falls under these crimes meaning the judge who carried them out is the real perpetrator.
The manager of the court says, “They didn’t issue an official ruling, but ordered the children outside to throw stones at him in order to drive him away. They didn’t think of it as cruelty to animals, but as an appropriate way to ‘get back at’ the spirit which entered the poor dog.”
“An official ruling” is key in capital punishment under any religious or secular law and using stones to drive something away is much different than using stones to kill it. And asking children to take part in the matter seems incredibly irresponsible and quite frankly, unlikely.
reprinted from Death and Taxes magazine
Last I heard, the dog managed to escape.
More articles about this story