The Famous “Stone Your Kids” Case

Posted by Moses on September 23, 2007

Hello loyal readers and seekers of His Word in Truth, this is Moses. Don?t worry, Jesus is fine, he?s just spending the day with Luciano, who as you may know is a recent arrival up here. They’re rehearsing for their performance tonight at God’s birthday party. I know what you’re thinking - God doesn’t have a birthday. You’re right, but that doesn’t stop us from celebrating it about four times per year. God is, to put it bluntly, something of a socialite, and uses every opportunity available to make everyone in Heaven visit Him on His hill.

I would not mention it to Him though. You see, I can get away with candidly speaking of God’s personal life, you most certainly cannot. Oh did you forget? Mountains and fire and tablets of Supreme Law and whatnot give me special privileges beyond comprehension here in Heaven City. One of which is to interpret Supreme Biblical Law in an advisory role to God. Of course, God is not beholden to the will and judgment of the Court; instead relying on many of the greatest legal minds throughout history who make up the Court?s Justices to check the applicability of Biblical Law against modern societal trends, so that He may formulate a more perfect response.

Public stoning, especially of gluttonous children, is up 218 percent in recent years. Such a trend of growth is a positive indicator that the Lord is determined to continue. Understandably, given the current societal norms, there have been challenges to the applicability of the Deuteronomy Statute.

I am here today to lay the argument to rest. This issue was settled long ago. Included in my appearance here today is the landmark case: Ratcliff v. Hennarith Village Elders, circa 956AD

So please stop petitioning the Court over this matter or I will be forced to recommend immediate damnation for contempt. That is all.

Ratcliff v. Hennarith Village Elders, circa 956AD
majority opinion written by Chief Justice Moses

In granting certiorari the High Court has decided to hear the case of Ratcliff v. Hennarith Village Elders. The dispute centers around Shirlee Ratcliff, a widowed mother of three and pious milk maiden, and the refusal by Hennarith Village Elders to carry out Ratcliff?s request that her unruly child be stoned to death in accordance with Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

The High Court is charged with three tasks in this matter:

(1) Determine whether Shirlee Ratcliff?s request was valid under statute.

(2) Determine whether Hennarith City Elders had a reasonable justification in denying Ratcliff?s request.

(3) Determining whether accordance to Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is permanently applicable under an originalist perspective regardless of modern Earthly trends.

The dispute between petitioner Ratcliff and Hennarith Elders occurred on August 21, 956, after petitioner Ratcliff found that her middle son, 10-year old Garth Ratcliff, had stolen two silver pence from his mother?s coffers.

In determining the validity of petitioner Ratcliff?s request, the High Court is able to identify no less than seventeen damnable post-repentance violations by Garth Ratcliff:

Observe the Sabbath day and keep it holy: (four counts)

Honor your father and your mother: (eight counts)

Neither shall you steal: (five counts; including August 21, 956)

In accordance with Deuteronomy 21:18-21, the court has also identified no less than thirteen reasonable attempts by petitioner Ratcliff to chasten her son Garth within the same timeframe, from which his refusal to hearken unto her boiled over on the date of the event in question. With consideration of these factors the High Court has found petitioner Ratcliff?s assertion of discretionary justification to invoke and request the death of her unruly child in accordance with Deuteronomy 21:18-21 to be within the necessary criteria to find such an invocation justifiable, and furthermore, quite reasonable given the unruly nature of the child.

In defense, the Elders of Hennarith Village made the simple argument that people do not stone one another to death in modern 956 England, much less children, and refused petitioner Ratcliff?s justifiable request with little consideration of thy Lord?s law. In response, petitioner Ratcliff, while at the gates of Hennarith Village and with hold of her son, again petitioned the Elders, who once more turned down her justifiable request even after petitioner Ratcliff had reconciled her invocation of Deuteronomy 21:18-21 to include hanging, burning at the stake, boiling, bludgeoning, impalement, drawing and quartering, decapitation, or any of the other more socially acceptable and commonly associated methods of execution in modern 956 era England. The High Court cannot entirely condone this concession by petitioner Ratcliff, but given her pious nature and extenuating disposition the High Court has ruled in favor of exonerating petitioner Ratcliff from damnation over her concession.

The greater consideration before the High Court is the matter of Deuteronomy 21:18-21 and its eternal application to Earthly societal shifts. Certainly one cannot argue against the axiom that all laws existing outside the Holy Bible, with exception to instances where Earthly laws are written on behalf of the Holy Scripture, and are ordained thereof, are indeed false. Furthermore, in reviewing Biblical precedence, the court found:

Isaiah 40:8 - The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

1 Peter 1:25 - But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Psalms 19:7 - The law of the LORD is perfect

The High Court, in consideration of the evidence at hand, has ruled unanimously and unequivocally to institute precedence, and under good faith, support statutory executive authority to eternally enforce all facets of Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

In the matter of determining liability of Hennarith Village Elders, the High Court can find no reasonable exculpating evidence. Their simple refusal to carry out the justifiable request by petitioner Ratcliff not once, but twice, and with mitigating concession, is in direct violation of the Deuteronomy 21:18-21 statutes, and in accordance with the ordained authority of this Court, and under consideration of the facts presented, the ruling is unanimous in favor of petitioner Ratcliff. Furthermore, the court finds liable the Hennarith Village Elders; the following petition is submitted for the immediate eternal damnation of:

Elvin Mcmullen

Herlewin Weingarten

Thaddeus Shotts

Fordwin Griffis

Leofwin McElroy

Theobald Wilson

Wendell Grant

Reinaldo Atkinson

Myles Gist

And;

Garth Ratcliff

And;

Hildred Olphert, though bearing no relevance to the case at hand, was subsequently found to have committed ninety-one damnable offenses during the routine course of investigation.

Share and Enjoy: