Jewish court sentences dog to death by stoning

[Cakes]

This is why we have separation of church and state. It keeps some of the rabble out of government.

It's not the kind of court you're thinking of, the Rabbi(s?) are almost certainly not any kind of government authorities.

This is a cold and scary reminder of why no religion has any place in government or court. There is a time and place for religion and politics and the justice system aren't it.

See above.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

Education is also a basic human right, which groups like the rabbi's court in question tend to ignore.

Right to education is not a warrant to attack "ignorance".

In other words, you cannot stop people learning about evolution and reproduction, but you also can't stop them going to school on Sunday (or Friday or Saturday, whatever Sabbath day). People in private have the right to indulge their fancies and beliefs as long as no one gets hurt.

The point is they people should to the opportunity to make up their own mind, to square what they have been told about the universe by different groups an interpret things different ways. Like can they be a Christian yet not believe in the literal truth of the bible, and treat God more as a metaphor. Or give it up completely.

The law should not intervene unless what is being taught is so seditious and destructive that there there can be no thought or balance, like white-power rallies actively calling for murder.

That is where you draw the line of what people can and cannot hear. And it's not unprecedented considering the principal of the crime of conspiracy, that principal applies not just in a private discussion but also in large group announcements/speeches/decrees.

This court has obviously gone too far, they thought no one would care about a dog, they may not have thought anyone would listen to them, but animal cruelty laws I think exist even in Israel.

Important bit are in bold.
You're absolutely right: in private dealings, no one ought to intervene (provided nobody else is impacted either, of course). The thing is, matters of religion are hardly ever private affairs, at least if they pertain to how one should behave in society.

I'm quite glad you brought up how teaching evolution and having Sunday school are analogous, because this goes back to why I care so much about this issue. I am an aspiring scientist, so I am quite invested in the proliferation of knowledge. In this example, we have the teaching of scientific fact versus instilling some rather badly written mythology as fact. I am not about to claim that everybody must have a perfect understanding of scientific theories like evolution, but it is undeniable that it is a fact, and hence must be taught at least on some basic level. Theology on the other hand is myth, which can be demonstrated quite easily. Are you still about to claim that one should be free to teach either or both? Would you seriously want to subject the next generation to learning that some bronze age myth from the middle east is on the same intellectual level as thoroughly researched and understood scientific fact? Would you condemn them to grow up knowing less than you do now? I hope you can appreciate just how reprehensible such a sentiment is.

What is being taught to children is absolutely a matter for the law to intervene. By the very nature of education, any misinformation is destructive. I want to be clear here: I do not have any children myself, and I doubt I ever will. However, I have seen the effects of this type of purely manufactured controversy between myth and fact in the eduction system winding its way up into politics, particularly down here in Texas. We are now at the point where the whitewashing of history textbooks to fit the idealized history that some rather imbecilic individual imagine actually happened was seriously considered. This is obviously an extreme case, but they grow out of seemingly innocuous sermons. Is it so wrong to want to stop a problem at its source, rather than trying to combat it in its later stages?

 

[Jegsimmons]

really? an Israelite court? huh, and here i thought this was one of the more intelligent countries left...

though is this even true?

 

[cookieXkiller]

Well that's just...that's just silly. Poor doggy. :/

yeah ... animal cruelty much?
this is beyond silly ... its like a joke gone wrong ...
I hope its not true...

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Humans are bizarre creatures, especially when religion gets mixed up in it. (Which probably goes double when the religion in question is some...unusual...splinter sect, as appears to be the case here.)

Well, at least the dog got away. That's a high point to this farce.

 

[KnowYourOnion]

Crazy people. They don't really hold any sway with the rest of us.

Also, while I'm not praising what the religious extremists are doing here, I think it's quite different, quite very very different, than what Islamic extremists do in the rest of the world.

Also, you're like, the third guy that posts something about this in the last day... wtf

I agree completely Jewish extremists don't kill innocent Westerners, they prefer to attack innocent Palstinians who just want to have some of THEIR land back..........

 

[Caligulove]

Thinking a dog is the reincarnated soul of a rational lawyer who insulted your feelings some time ago isn't normal.
But on religion it is.

Thinking the soul of said lawyer is currently in the dog due to your own doing sounds like schizophrenia.
But not on religion

Condemning and then attempting to beat a dog to death with stones, thrown by children, for it's inherent impurity sounds immoral.
But not on religion.

These people should all be institutionalized.

 

[Dana22]

Its Judaist Court, not Jewish.

 

[Wolfgang Ravenna]

This is a good step for Israeli courts! Finally, after all the nonesense they do internationally and domestically, they finally show some good, common SENSE!

Seriously, witchcraft. Someone help me find a passage in the bible that can be interpreted as "Thou art forbidden to crap" and see how many witches we can burn in the process...

 

[Smerf]

i think this is half the story. those animal rights groups are usually pure evil.

 

[Treblaine]

You're absolutely right: in private dealings, no one ought to intervene (provided nobody else is impacted either, of course). The thing is, matters of religion are hardly ever private affairs, at least if they pertain to how one should behave in society.

I'm quite glad you brought up how teaching evolution and having Sunday school are analogous, because this goes back to why I care so much about this issue. I am an aspiring scientist, so I am quite invested in the proliferation of knowledge. In this example, we have the teaching of scientific fact versus instilling some rather badly written mythology as fact. I am not about to claim that everybody must have a perfect understanding of scientific theories like evolution, but it is undeniable that it is a fact, and hence must be taught at least on some basic level. Theology on the other hand is myth, which can be demonstrated quite easily. Are you still about to claim that one should be free to teach either or both? Would you seriously want to subject the next generation to learning that some bronze age myth from the middle east is on the same intellectual level as thoroughly researched and understood scientific fact? Would you condemn them to grow up knowing less than you do now? I hope you can appreciate just how reprehensible such a sentiment is.

What is being taught to children is absolutely a matter for the law to intervene. By the very nature of education, any misinformation is destructive. I want to be clear here: I do not have any children myself, and I doubt I ever will. However, I have seen the effects of this type of purely manufactured controversy between myth and fact in the eduction system winding its way up into politics, particularly down here in Texas. We are now at the point where the whitewashing of history textbooks to fit the idealized history that some rather imbecilic individual imagine actually happened was seriously considered. This is obviously an extreme case, but they grow out of seemingly innocuous sermons. Is it so wrong to want to stop a problem at its source, rather than trying to combat it in its later stages?

"Are you still about to claim that one should be free to teach either or both? "

Are you saying we should give freedom of speech to one but not the other?

My reasonable claim is it is a bad idea to use the awesome power of government to force organisations to censor or make puppets of organisations. That power should only be unleashed in the gravest circumstances such as when an organisation is being violently seditious.

-It is wrong for the church to use government power to force schools to undermine evolution.
-It is wrong for scientists to use government power to force churches to undermine their faith.

Two wrongs don't make a right. This started with the wrong of education establishments being forced to teach creationism. It should not be responded with churches being censored in how to preach their own faith, this is not a war!

"any misinformation is destructive."

That... is pretty extreme. You mean it would be legally prohibited for parents to make up stories like Santa and the Easter bunny? Your ideas of hyper-rational approach are quite frankly out of touch with reality that such oppressive interference would generate a huge backlash and only cause these groups to become more entrenched in their beliefs.

How about you take a look at societies and organisations that used to be creationist but now take a figurative/metaphorical view of the bible, that includes The Vatican Church that accepts Darwinism.

They did not move on through a "purge" of opposing ideas but by accepting this idea:

Their faith can be divine even if the Bible is only Myth

To put it in more succinct terms, it's less a "carpet bombing" or brainwashing of opposing ideas. That is quite frankly what Pol Pot would do. It's much more like Inception. You need to plant a more powerful idea in people's heads.

I cannot even begin to describe how is the proper way to go about this, but to say the least - obviously the shared dreaming in bullshit, but the implanting of an emotionally charged idea (without them realising it) deep in their subconscious is precisely right.

How do you put an idea into someone's subconscious? And of a whole population? Well for one you don't shout it at them in "logical" debates. You do it the same way Coca Cola convinces most of the world they make the best tasting cola in the world. Advertising, marketing, media.

Before you say "bullshit" and dismiss my idea of subtle influencing as futile I suggest you watch Adam Curtis' documentary "The Century of the Self". Yes, it is a 4 hour long documentary but it should be a good beginner's guide to manipulating people on a gargantuan scale.

Adam Curtis is no crank, he is not another Michael Moore. His recommendations are impeccable and he has an Oxford Degree in genetics, evolutionary biology, psychology, politics, sociology and elementary statistics.

And his documentaries haven't won a single Oscar, so he must be good

 

[Dfskelleton]

"Hmm... there's a wasp outside that hasn't gone away for some time now... that obviously means that he is the reincarnation of that fat kid who pushed me off the swing when I was five! Stone it! Stone it!"
That's basically what they're saying right now.

 

[Vonnis]

And this is why the western world should either just leave the middle east alone and build a wall around it, or bomb the entire area to kingdom come.

 

[Cheesus333]

If that's an elaborate joke, it's pretty funny.

If it's serious, then it is absolutely absurd. Which is kind of an oxymoron, come to think of it.

 

[Olorune]

Religion must kill something in a person's brain that manages their common sense, because that entire story is, and excuse the language, fucking retarded. A curse?!? Are you serious?!?

 

[Faux Furry]

Don't be so quick to dismiss them. They very well may have had a point.

Still, that's no excuse to stone him. They should take him to court and give him a sound legal thrashing there...unless they're chickens re-incarnated as humans scared that he'll eat them alive (metaphorically and literally).

 

[OceanRunner]

It's just Middle-Ages era superstition.

 

[Pumpkin_Eater]

This is why we have separation of church and state. It keeps some of the rabble out of government.

It's not the kind of court you're thinking of, the Rabbi(s?) are almost certainly not any kind of government authorities.

This is a cold and scary reminder of why no religion has any place in government or court. There is a time and place for religion and politics and the justice system aren't it.

See above.

Courts are a legal entities. If it did not have approval from, and the backing of the government it would have been shut down long ago, because attempting to enforce its decisions would have included criminal actions (in this case cruelty to animals). This court is 20 years old; it's well established, not a fly by night group of nutjobs meeting in a broom closet.