In the Afterlife, Are All Creatures Equal?
There is never an
acceptable justification for the action of one human taking the life of another.
Never. Not in peace. Not in war. By accepting such rationales, we support
violent war as a logical way of settling differences. It is not.
There is
no rehabilitation for one who kills another human. Acts of anger, passion,
revenge in which lives are taken are the least logical of solutions, and those
who take another's life are capable of repeating that same action in the future.
There is also no justice for a society taking the life of a killer. Most
enlightened nations have banned such punishment. Those who have not include
China, Iran, and the United States.
In the case of well-publicized
murders, society always asks "why." Killers are rarely given the opportunity to
explain their violent act. Instead, they are either sent to a penal institution,
or placed in a high security mental hospital where "experts" ask why.
Those same experts rarely share the answers, with the exception of those who
write best selling tell-all books. Even in those cases, we get Bugliosi-like
interpretations of a crime and do not hear from the actual killer. (Vincent
Bugliosi was Charles Manson's prosecutor and made his fortune by writing "Helter
Skelter", a best seller based upon his insider knowledge of the Manson case.)
There was a recent murder which captured the interest, compassion, and then
mourning spirits of Americans. A young girl about to be married was murdered in
her Yale University animal research laboratory by a lab technician who had
previously been angered by her inability to follow research protocols.
That much has been released by the media.
What exactly were those
protocols which the young woman refused to follow? Will we ever be told?
Annie Le was experimenting on mice. What exactly was she doing? Was she training
them to turn right or left in a maze or press a Skinner Box lever while being
rewarded with a food pellet? Or was she treating her research mice with one drug
or another, then killing them and cutting their bodies open to learn the effects
of her experimental "protocol?" I want to know.
Does it make a
difference? Not really. Annie died a horrible death in pain and terror. Many
laboratory animals experience similar emotions during the final moments of
their own lives. To thee gentle creatures, Annie Le was the one wearing the
butcher's apron.
More than one billion people believe that there is an
afterlife in which all living creatures go to a "better place." These are people
who believe that all living beings are one with God. Each living creature has
emotions and can give and receive love and has the ability to feel pain.
In their philosophy, many people extend a concept of harmlessness to other
living creatures. The word they use to describe that harmlessness is "Ahimsa."
In Revelations 4 (King James version of the Bible) we read of a God in
heaven, surrounded by angels and other non-human creatures. Verses six and
seven:
"...In the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were
four beasts full of eyes before and behind. And the first beast was like a lion,
and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and
the fourth beast was like a flying eagle."
So, in Revelations, the Bible
tells us that there are animals in heaven who are worthy to sit at the feet
of God. Are not all such living creatures equally worthy?
At Annie Le's
funeral, men of God console mourners by suggesting that she now resides in a
"better place."
Is she in a better place? A place in which Annie now
shares a spiritual plane with the same mice who died violently in her laboratory
as a matter of routine? What are your thoughts?
Google now returns
millions of Internet links to Annie Le searches. There have been thousands of
stories written about her tragic death. Yesterday (Friday, September 18, 2009) I
read one such story in New York's Daily News which proposed that Annie Le
led a heroic life and died a heroic death as she was seeking a cure to
mankind's greatest disease. Was that actually true? I immediately sent this
email to the author:
Friday,
September 18, 2009, 2:13 PM
RSchapiro@nydailyne ws.comDear Mr. Schapiro,
In today's story
(Suspect's quiet as a mouse in a cage) you and your colleagues wrote:
"...Le conducted complicated experiments with implications for cancer
treatment."
Having once run an animal testing lab and conducted rat
experiments, I would be interested in knowing the nature of Annie Le's work.
What was "complicated" about her research? What implications does her work have
for cancer treatment?
Thanks for your consideration!
Robert Cohen
i4crob@earthlink. net
In
death, newspaper reporters are attempting to create sympathy for this victim by
making her larger
than life. I sent a second request at 5 PM. My third and
final request was sent at 8:30 PM. I've yet to receive a response to my
simple queries. Nor do I expect to as I caught the lying creep with his pants
down.
I suspect that the reporter attempted to fool his readers with an
untruth. Princeton University stocks over 160,000 of the 250,000 journals
being published weekly or monthly. There are millions upon millions of
scientists performing research, and none of them will cure cancer in my
lifetime. Since Nixon declared war on cancer 38 years ago, billions of
laboratory animals have suffered needlessly because scientists do not observe
professional protocols. These scientists are not heroic. When they die from any
one of society's horrific crimes, attempts to make them something which they are
not become pathetic deceptions.
Annie Le's tragedy is an example of one
man's horrific pathology. It is a sickness and an act which will terrorize
us all, robbing us of a trusting innocence while reminding us that such abnormal
behavior will forever compromise and contradict logic. Her death is nothing
more and nothing less and the manner of her passing is to be forever remembered.
Robert Cohen
http://www.notmilk. com
