Star Sign
Reassignment Continues To Promote Controversy
(Based on an
idea from Alan
Pinkett's
book, Utta
Drivel Too)
Astrologers remain divided
about the increasing number of people choosing to
undergo Star Sign Reassignment.
As little as ten years ago
it was believed that natal charts were fixed at
the time of birth, and that lives would
inevitably follow the courses those charts
foretold. Then Professor Claire Voyant from
Scotland’s Skye University performed the
pioneering procedure that changed the star sign
of Mrs Stella McTarot of Glasgow from Taurus with
Capricorn rising, to Aquarius with Sagittarius
rising.
Clinical follow-up
confirmed that the personality and fortunes of
Mrs McTarot had been transformed. ‘Ah used
tae be pure borin' an' ne'er gart onie bunsens,’
she told the Glasgow Herald in 2003. ‘Noo
I’m imaginatife an' innovatife an' hae jist
earned mah first million poonds.’
Initially it was only
possible to effect simple transformations such as
that from Taurus to Aquarius. During the past
decade, however, huge progress has been made in
star charting due to observations made with the
Hubble and other telescopes. There have also been
substantial advances in astrological mathematics.
This has allowed the use of more distant stars in
fine-tuning the gravitational and electro-magnetic
fields within Star Sign Reassignment chambers - a
subject for which Professor Voyant received the
Nobel Prize for Astrology in 2005.
‘It has now become
routine,’ confirmed Professor Voyant in a
recent BBC News interview, ‘to modify
astrological birth charts, post-natally. We can
now safely undertake even the highly
sophisticated transformation from Libra with
Pisces rising, to Aries with Leo rising. We never
thought we would come this far, this quickly.’
Opponents of Star Sign
Reassignment, including the Catholic Church,
argue that SSR is against the laws of nature, and
that the long term effects of so many people
changing their own destinies are unpredictable
and potentially dangerous. Radical groups of
dissenting astrologers, such as the Anti-SSR
League, have claimed responsibility for several
bomb attacks. ‘SSR must be outlawed,’
angrily demanded a balaclava-clad activist during
a recent protest, ‘or we will continue to
ruthlessly target individuals and organisations
who undertake work in this field.’
In the UK most SSRs are
undertaken privately, although the NHS will fund
treatment in exceptional cases where no viable
alternative therapies exist. Mr Joss Stick of
Basingstoke recently took his local Heath
Authority to the High Court when they refused to
fund his SSR. The Court found in his favour. The
judgement concluded that the ultimate cost to the
NHS of all the illnesses predicted by Mr
Stick’s natal chart would significantly
exceed the cost of SSR. This was even without the
future costs to society and the criminal justice
system of all his predicted heinous crimes.
Particularly controversial
are British Government proposals for
‘Compulsory SSR Orders’ for persistent
or dangerous offenders. Supporters point to the
success of such legislation in America. ‘All
inmates on Death Rows have been released as model
citizens with great prospects,’ confirmed a
spokesperson for the US Justice Department.
‘We are particularly pleased about the
conversion of so many Al-Qaeda supporters to
Buddhism.’
Opponents, however, have
highlighted alleged abuses of human rights within
the American compulsory SSR process due to the
choice of new natal charts being made by the
State rather than the individual.
‘They’re all reassigned to a natal
chart that ensures hard work and total compliance
with every law,’ highlighted a
representative of Amnesty International.
‘How long will it be before governments
start to covertly use SSR as a means of creating
compliant citizens who simply choose to support
the status quo?’
Concern has also been
raised about the recent fashion trend of using
SSR to adopt celebrity natal charts. It is
believed that nearly half a million American
women are currently emulating Angelina Jolie.
Fears have been expressed that by 2020 all
Americans might choose to be Hollywood superstars,
leaving no one to service the country’s
infrastructure.
Giving evidence to a US
Senate Special Committee, Professor Voyant agreed
that proper controls were required in the use of
SSR. ‘However,’ she added, ‘I
believe it to be immoral to deprive people on
ideological grounds of the life-changing
opportunities afforded by this process.’
|
