The NEWS from 10.January.02
The Pig-Man
In Scotland and the USA, 2 bio-tech firms have made another
“breakthrough.” They have altered the genetic make-up of piglets via genetic
engineering in such a way that their organs can be transferred to human beings.
The genetic engineers were able to turn off certain antigens in the cloned
animals that are rejected by the human body. With this, it is now actually
possible to transplant pig hearts, pig kidneys and other organs from the
4-legged animals into people. The National Medical Society is said to be already
feverishly working on guidelines for these “xenotransplants.” Virologist Ralf
Tönjes of the national office for serums and vaccines assured the magazine
Spiegel: “Xenotransplantion is a possibility that should be taken seriously as
treatment for the many thousands of people who are waiting for organ donors.”
Whether this really works out is, of course, still a controversial issue. As the
magazine also reported, Reinhard Kurth, the Director of the Robert Koch
Institute in Berlin, views this latest development with skepticism: “We do not
know how pig viruses will react in a human body.” One cannot completely exclude
the possibility that new forms of infections may develop. For this reason, it is
necessary to have a “debate over a broad segment of society to decide whether
the risks associated with xenotransplants are acceptable.” Does this really have
to do with just medical-technical “risks”?
Pigs are highly intelligent animals and– contrary to people – are extremely
sensitive. Whoever greets them in a friendly manner is greeted by them like
house pets, sniffing trustingly and grunting cheerfully. But we do not treat
them as companions, as we do cats and dogs. Instead, we treat them like our
foodstuff, whose only purpose in life is to be fattened and slaughtered for us –
in part under such wretched conditions that not a few of the victims die of
heart failure under shock of the treatment they receive from humans. Now we not
only want to merely butcher the pigs in order to eat them, but to cut them up so
that their organs can be transferred to us. No heart for pigs, but a pig heart
for the heartless person. The insult “you pig” now finally makes sense: It loses
its insulting character and becomes a matter-of-fact determination, especially
when the person addressed carries not only a pig heart, but perhaps also a pig
liver or a pig kidney.
That the animal-man , who develops from such transplants, is not in accord with
the order of creation is seen not least of all in the reaction of the immune
system in the human organism, which rejects genetically engineered animals
organs, as well as foreign human organs. But man has not taken the natural order
of things seriously for a long time. If it resists him, natural limits are
manipulated away. This, of course, is done with a “high goal” in mind – the
treatment of sick people, as they always say. Besides the already mentioned
risks of this “treatment,” there is also the question of whether one can even
speak of “treatment” at all, when a mixture of man and animal is the result. It
is not just particles of matter that are put together here; in every living
organ, energies vibrate, these are soul-aspects of the whole organism. This has
been proven many times over with transplants from humans to humans, through the
fact that the organ receiver suddenly adopts the habits of the organ donor.
There have been examples of drastic personality changes. Some suddenly felt: “I
have two souls in my chest ...” The path of life and of purification of a person
can be considerably disturbed when the seismographs soul and conscience are
disturbed. What is true for organ transplants between human beings is especially
true for transplanting organs from animals to humans.
The one who ignores all this disregards the dignity of man. This consists of his
being able to lead his life in free self-determination and to orient himself to
ethical standards with the help of his conscience. This presumes that man is
master in his own house and does not slip foreign energy fields between body,
soul and spirit. The one whose only concern is to have the longest possible
physical life can keep the vehicle of his soul going by hook or by crook via
transplants of tissues and organs. However, he must realize that by doing this
he turns against his own inner life clock as well as against his divine self.
During the time on Earth given to him by God, he no longer lives in order to
purify himself of the soul-burdens that he has inflicted upon himself in this or
former lives. He vegetates in the rhythmic beat of his transplants as a mixture
of his own and foreign soul programs – an apocalyptic being from the “Brave New
World” of a monstrous medicine.
The State and the Crucifix
In Bavaria, Germany, crosses hang in the classrooms of the
public schools – mostly with a carved wooden corpse of the martyred Jesus of
Nazareth. Some years ago, this led to a ruling by the German Supreme Court that
shook the country. The constitutional judges ruled that the state regulation of
hanging crosses in schools and classrooms is not in accordance with the
constitutional law of state neutrality in issues of religion and philosophy.
Students and their parents who feel that their freedom of religion is thus
encroached upon, can therefore demand they not be taught under the cross. A
storm of indignation broke out. Above all, politicians whose parties are
denominated “Christian,” even though one doesn’t notice much of this, suddenly
came out strongly declaring their belief in the symbol of the crucified One.
Many even called for resistance to this decision by the highest German court.
However, the judges’ ruling in no way led to a call for removal of all the
crosses; the crosses had to be removed only where those of other faiths opposed
the connection between the state obligation to attend school and Christian
symbols. The Bavarian Parliament even passed a special law to make this clear.
Since then, things calmed down and the “Christian” politicians of Bavaria did
not have to continue to get all worked up as good “Christians”. Until now, when
a teacher again brought up the issue: As he furnished his student’s scantily
furnished classroom with self-made bookcases, he keep looking at the cross with
the corpse, and he thought about what kind of impulses went out from this figure
to the students. “It cannot be anything positive,” thought teacher Riggemann, as
he reported to the Süddeutsche Newspaper. He took the cross down; after some
time, he hung it up again at the request of the children, because the religion
teacher had told them the cross would help them with their schoolwork. Finally,
he took it down again, because he concluded that he should be consistent.
The case finally went to court, where the educator expressed himself clearly:
“The cross is an attack on my freedom of religion.” With the cross, Christianity
has given itself a symbol of “the cruelest form of execution.” Since the
crucifixion of Jesus, 13 million Jews were murdered under the sign of the cross.
The Bavarian Administrative Court, which had to rule this time, ruled in favor
of the teacher. The school has to take down the cross in his classroom.
The biography of this man is interesting. At six years of age, he became a
ministrant; at ten, he entered a Catholic high school; after his diploma he
began theological studies in a seminary. “I was simply looking for a meaning to
my life,” he says today, but he did not find he there, and finally switched from
theology to education.
Konrad Riggemann is not the first to take offence at the dead man on the cross.
Didn’t the crucified One resurrect long ago? Why does one try to use the
crucifix to immortalize His suffering on Good Friday instead of making a symbol
of the joy of Easter and the cross of resurrection without a corpse? Do the
churches, which pay homage to this crucifix cult, prefer the dead Jesus to the
resurrected One? If we had not become accustomed to this cruel symbol long ago,
we would have probably turned away in horror.
Because the court ruled in favor of the courageous teacher, the politicians who
call themselves Christian again expressed “Christian” outrage. The General
Secretary of the Christian Social Union party recommended to the teacher that he
leave the state educational system. The Bavarian Minister of Education and the
Arts, Monika Hohlmeier, also a member of the Christian Social Union, described
the appeal of the teacher to his basic rights “as a negative example” and does
not assume “that other Bavarian teachers want to so ruthlessly push through a
similar abstruse interpretation of the Christian symbol of the cross as occurred
here.” The minister seems to think little of the history of the Church, to say
nothing of the constitutional rights of her teachers.
Back to CNA-News-Overview
CNA - Christlian News Agency in
Universal Life e.V.
Haugerring 7, 97070 Würzburg, 21. Sept. 2001
Tel.: 09391/504-200, Fax: 09391/504-202
