Pontiff Says People Aren't Governed by the Stars

Zenit ^ | VATICAN CITY, JAN. 7, 2009

[GonzoII]

Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-24710?l=english

Pontiff Says People Aren't Governed by the Stars

Reiterates Galileo's Thought on Cosmos

VATICAN CITY, JAN. 7, 2009 (Zenit.org).- The universe is not governed by a blind force, but by love, and people are not slaves to the cosmos, Benedict XVI says.

The Pope affirmed this Tuesday during a Mass in St. Peter's Basilica that celebrated the magi of the east, who arrived to Bethlehem following a star. During his homily he spoke of Galileo's idea that love governs the cosmos.

The Holy Father noted that 2009 marks the 400th anniversary of Galileo's first observations by telescope. This anniversary motivated UNESCO to proclaim '09 an International Year of Astronomy.

The Pontiff spoke of a "new flourishing" in this field of science, "thanks to the passion and the faith of many scientists, who following the steps of Galileo, renounce neither reason nor faith. What's more, they deeply value both, in their reciprocal fruitfulness."

Benedict XVI explained that "Christian thought compares the cosmos to a 'book,' -- Galileo himself said this -- considering it as a work of an Author."

According to this book, he said, "divine love, incarnated in Christ is the fundamental and universal law of creation. This should not be understood in a poetic, but in a real sense."

Dante also understood it this way, the Pope said, noting how the author concludes "Paradise" with a definition of God as "the love that moves the sun and the other stars."

"This means that the stars, the planets [and] the entire universe are not governed by a blind force, [and] do not obey only the dynamics of matter," he said. "Therefore, cosmic elements shouldn't be divinized, but on the contrary, in everything and above everything, there is a personal will, the Spirit of God, who in Christ revealed himself as love."

Hence, the Bishop of Rome affirmed, people are not slaves of cosmic elements, "but are free, that is, they are capable of relating themselves with the creative liberty of God."

"He is at the origin of everything and governs everything," the Pope said, "not as a cold or anonymous motor, but as a Father, Spouse, Friend, Brother, as Logos, 'Word-Reason,' who has united himself to our mortal flesh once and for all and has fully shared our condition, manifesting the superabundant power of his grace."

© Innovative Media, Inc.

[GonzoII]

""He is at the origin of everything and governs everything," the Pope said, "not as a cold or anonymous motor, but as a Father, Spouse, Friend, Brother, as Logos, 'Word-Reason,' who has united himself to our mortal flesh once and for all and has fully shared our condition, manifesting the superabundant power of his grace."

Amen. Holy Father.

[Kimmers]

As far as I am concerned the Pope is stating the obvious. I am always surprised by people who believe in astrology.....I find it interesting but worthless in my life.

I am not Catholic but I am liking this Pope. He clearly has a great love for the Lord...

I also like his statement you quoted.

[Eye of Unk]

Hillary Clinton relies heavily on her astrological forecast.

[livius]

A beautiful statement by the Pope.

[SampleMan]

Does anyone else notice that you never hear atheists getting upset about astrology? How many times have you read about a law suit demanding the removal of astrological symbols from public places?

[livius]

I am always amazed at the people who fall for astrology. I worked in an office once where the most popular section of the paper was the astrology forecast, and everybody from the head honcho on down ran to consult it first thing in the morning. The bizarre thing was that if it was not favorable, they really lived in fear that some awful thing was going to happen to them.

Christ sets us free from those fears. I think many Christians don’t realize how pagan peoples were surrounded by fears (and modern pagans still are) and what a great relief it was to them, upon their converstion to Christianity, to be able to throw off these fears and trust in the love of God.

[Red in Blue PA]

Re: Christ sets us free from those fears

I would argue that common sense set us free from those fears.

[Always Right]

As far as I am concerned the Pope is stating the obvious. I am always surprised by people who believe in astrology.....

Although he said some elogant things, I agree, the main theme was obvious.

[Eye of Unk]

Its a dangerous situation that Obama has to fall upon his Islamic teaching in times of crisis.

We are in for some deep poo-doo.

[pgyanke]

Does anyone else notice that you never hear atheists getting upset about astrology? How many times have you read about a law suit demanding the removal of astrological symbols from public places?

G.K. Chesterton made an observation that touches on this phenomenon. It regards blasphemy. I'll try to quote... but it's from memory so consider it a paraphrase:

"Blasphemy demonstrates belief. It is an active rejection of a sacred truth. Need proof? Blaspheme Thor. It is a ridiculous proposition because whatever one might say would be more comedy than blasphemy."

We are made in the image and likeness of God. Our being reflects our Creator. Therefore, we recognize when we are blaspheming the sacred.

[DieHard the Hunter]

Goodonya, Holy Father! Well said!

Common-bloody-sense told exactly like it needed telling by a very good Pope who doesn’t mind telling things like it is. I love how this Pontiff never shies away from telling the Truth, even if it is a Truth that some people won’t like.

I really like this Pope. He is someone very special. A man for these uncertain times.

[frogjerk]

I would argue that common sense set us free from those fears.

The author of common sense is God.

[GL of Sector 2814]

Does anyone else notice that you never hear atheists getting upset about astrology?

I see atheists getting upset about astrology quite frequently...but I also subscribe to the magazines The Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic.

[Kimmers]

excellent point

[dangus]

Read it more carefully. He’s attacking not only astrology, but nihilistic cosmology.

[dangus]

I think you need to make a distinction between people being frustrated in an academic sense, and people taking political action. Cold, hard fact: If two libraries in two communities on opposite ends of the same state put up two statues on their state-funded property, one of Zeus and one of Christ, only one would get sued.

[SampleMan]

I see atheists getting upset about astrology quite frequently...but I also subscribe to the magazines The Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic.

Where are the lawsuits?

[GunRunner]

Does anyone else notice that you never hear atheists getting upset about astrology?

If it was taught in public school science classes, I guarantee you they would.

[SampleMan]

If it was taught in public school science classes, I guarantee you they would.

I'm unaware of any public schools that teach Christianity, although some do cast doubt that theories are facts. Yet, while a teacher saying "We should all thank God..." will send some atheists into a tizzy, "Thank your lucky stars." or "I'm a Libra and Libras love peace." appears not to bring on their ire.

You find the astrological symbols all over universities, etc. No one complains. I'm also unaware of any lawsuits concerning references treating our planet as a type of living god, which do appear in public school teachings.

[GunRunner]

I'm unaware of any public schools that teach Christianity, although some do cast doubt that theories are facts. Yet, while a teacher saying "We should all thank God..." will send some atheists into a tizzy, "Thank your lucky stars." or "I'm a Libra and Libras love peace." appears not to bring on their ire.

I think the difference is that astrology is not a religion. It's similar to alchemy in that it is an ancient pseudoscience; mankind's first stab at astronomy mixed with a little philosophy.

[SampleMan]

I think the difference is that astrology is not a religion. It's similar to alchemy in that it is an ancient pseudoscience; mankind's first stab at astronomy mixed with a little philosophy.

It assumes a higher, supernatural power is in charge of your destiny. That sounds pretty religious to me. Monotheistic religions consider astrology to be a false religion.

[GunRunner]

It assumes a higher, supernatural power is in charge of your destiny. That sounds pretty religious to me.

You might have a point, but I don't think they consider the stars supernatural. At most it seems to be a belief in predestination coupled with the metaphysical.

[SampleMan]

And why are the planets named after gods?

[stripes1776]

You might have a point, but I don't think they consider the stars supernatural. At most it seems to be a belief in predestination coupled with the metaphysical.

In ancient cosmology, everything above the orbit of the moon was eternal. The sun, moon, planets, and stars were visible eternal beings made of quintessence. Each of those celestial beings was embedded in a crystalline sphere, each inside the next. There were nine of these concentric spheres. From nearest to farthest there was the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the Stallatum (all the other stars embedded in one shpere), and the last was the Primum Mobile (the first moved).

The Primum Mobile had no luminous body embedded in it. Since it was transparent, it could not be seen, but it was inferred to exist in order in give movement to all of the inferior spheres. All of these spheres together were the heavens above. And above the Primum Mobile was the Empyrian. This was the ultimate heaven, the abode of God, the unmoved mover that started the Primum Mobile to rotate. This first movement was conferred by love to all the lower spheres below. All these celestial beings desired by love to join the being above them. Since they could not move upward because they were embedded in their own sphere, they rotated instead.

All of these celestial beings radiated an influence to all the spheres below them; the earth of course received all of these influences. But they were mostly seen as influences, not deterministic fates. And these influences could be good or bad.

If you were sick and went to the doctor and he could find no cause for your disease, he said there was some influence about the air causing people to be sick. Of course if he were an Italian doctor, he said the cause was an influenza, which is where our world for influenza comes from. It was originally a celestial and planetary influenza with no physical explanation.

Were the planets and stars supernatural? Yes, every thing above the orbit of the Moon was supernatural. Were the influences of these supernatural beings a matter of predestination? There were influences that could cause you good or ill, but you could oppose them if you were aware of the influence.

[GL of Sector 2814]

Where are the lawsuits?

I was responding to one of two separate questions. As for why there are no lawsuits demanding the removal of astrological symbols from public places, I can come up with two reasons:

1) Astrology is a pseudoscience, not a religion, and thus does not violate the Establishment Clause.

2) Offhand, I can't think of single instance in which there are astrological symbols in public places.

[SampleMan]

1) Astrology is a pseudoscience, not a religion, and thus does not violate the Establishment Clause.

The Greeks, the Mayans and your local astrologer would have you flogged for such blasphemy. Where as you are correct that having them in a public space does not violate the Establishment Clause, neither does any other religious symbol violate the Establishment Clause. A law creating a state religion, thus establishing it, would violate that clause. The mere recognition of something's existence is as far as you can get from establishing it without being hostile. Purposefully, ignoring something's existence is assureadly hostile. Indeed, making laws that purposefully ignore something's existence and expunge it from the historical record is extremely hostile.

2) Offhand, I can't think of single instance in which there are astrological symbols in public places.

Given the number of zodiacs displayed in and on government buildings, your statement pretty much proves my point (assuming that you are an atheist). I bet you would notice them from 100 yards if they were the Ten Commandments or a cross.

Its been said on this thread that astrology isn't a religion because it believes in predestination controlled by matter. So I must assume that Calvinism would be a pseudoscience and not a religion if they believed that God had taken on the form of a large gaseous giant and called Him Jupiter.

[GL of Sector 2814]

The Greeks, the Mayans and your local astrologer would have you flogged for such blasphemy.

Hm...I don't recall seeing the editors of the magazines Skeptic and The Skeptical Inquirer being assaulted by astrologers...

In any case, I believe your logic is flawed. By the same argument, you could say that astronomy is a religion because of the treatment of Galileo by the Catholic Church.

Astrology isn't a religion any more than tarot reading, cheiromancy, or crystallomancy. It's a pseudoscience.

Where as you are correct that having them in a public space does not violate the Establishment Clause, neither does any other religious symbol violate the Establishment Clause. A law creating a state religion, thus establishing it, would violate that clause. The mere recognition of something's existence is as far as you can get from establishing it without being hostile. Purposefully, ignoring something's existence is assureadly hostile. Indeed, making laws that purposefully ignore something's existence and expunge it from the historical record is extremely hostile.

The Supreme court disagrees, in that it has ruled that displays of the Ten Commandments are illegal under some circumstances in public buildings (when they're not integrated with a secular display). Under other circumstances, they are permitted on government property.

Whether or not one agrees with these rulings, pseudosciences such as astrology, stupid as they are, aren't relevant, not being religions as such.

Given the number of zodiacs displayed in and on government buildings, your statement pretty much proves my point (assuming that you are an atheist). I bet you would notice them from 100 yards if they were the Ten Commandments or a cross.

What is the number of zodiacs displayed in and on government buildings? Do you have examples?

Its been said on this thread that astrology isn't a religion because it believes in predestination controlled by matter. So I must assume that Calvinism would be a pseudoscience and not a religion if they believed that God had taken on the form of a large gaseous giant and called Him Jupiter.

Assume whatever you wish...I didn't say it. Religions have organized worship, ritual, and societal norms of morality. Astrology has none of these. While many pseudosciences have spiritual elements, there is no "religion" of astrology or phrenology.

[SampleMan]

The Supreme court disagrees,...

Oh gosh, what a surprise. I'll add that to the long list of legislation that our little Politburo has passed. They also have ruled that you don't really have political free speech if you use anything more than your mouth and that full term babies aren't really human if you can manage to crush their head before they exit the birth canal. You're really on the shoulders of giants with that defense.

Good to hear that you are A-OK with the 10 Commandments, crosses, and nativity scenes being displayed on government property as long they are put up by folks who only think that Jesus was a philosopher or mystic harnessing the greater powers of the universe.

As Christians don't think that there is anything supernatural or magic about God (he's just harnessing the natural), wouldn't they also fall into your category of pseudoscience? Be careful of those convenient arguments.

[GL of Sector 2814]

The Supreme court disagrees...

Oh gosh, what a surprise. I'll add that to the long list of legislation that our little Politburo has passed. They also have ruled that you don't really have political free speech if you use anything more than your mouth and that full term babies aren't really human if you can manage to crush their head before they exit the birth canal. You're really on the shoulders of giants with that defense.

You only quoted 4 words out of my response, not including anything else. Convenient, that. Speaking of convenience, allow me restore the full quote (for your convenience): "The Supreme court disagrees, in that it has ruled that displays of the Ten Commandments are illegal under some circumstances in public buildings (when they're not integrated with a secular display). Under other circumstances, they are permitted on government property. Whether or not one agrees with these rulings, pseudosciences such as astrology, stupid as they are, aren't relevant, not being religions as such.

We were discussing why there are no lawsuits over the appearance of astrological symbols on government buildings (something you still haven't shown any evidence of). I'm pointing out the even if:
1) Such things actually do exist, that no one is suing for their removal because
2) Astrology is a pseudo-science, not a religion (a point that you did not refute) and thus the standard for removal as per the Supreme Court decision would not apply.

Care to address that actual points that I'm making?

Good to hear that you are A-OK with the 10 Commandments, crosses, and nativity scenes being displayed on government property as long they are put up by folks who only think that Jesus was a philosopher or mystic harnessing the greater powers of the universe.

I never said that I approved or disapproved of such things, I simply pointed out a Supreme Court decision and why astrological symbols aren't covered by it.

As Christians don't think that there is anything supernatural or magic about God (he's just harnessing the natural),

Every Christian I've ever spoken with or read on the subject believed that God is outside the natural universe...thus the term: supernatural.

wouldn't they also fall into your category of pseudoscience? Be careful of those convenient arguments.

No. Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method. Astrology fits this definition. Christianity does not.

Really, this isn't that hard...

[SampleMan]

You only quoted 4 words out of my response,...

They were the relevant ones.

We were discussing why there are no lawsuits over the appearance of astrological symbols on government buildings (something you still haven't shown any evidence of).

How many examples do you want me to find for you? There are thousands, and I'm not going to waste my time with someone that is only asking me to do their Google search, so that they can claim it ultimately doesn't matter. If you don't believe there are any try Googling "ISU AND Zodiac". Then give me a number at which you will concede that I am correct, or admit that your counter is a red herring.

You've created this idea of "pseudoscience" to excuse what is in reality a very pointed anti-Christian tirade by atheists. It would be most hilarious if a group were to claim an astrological belief in the nativity star and put out nativity scenes at the courthouse. Odds on that being accepted as harmless, non-religious pseudoscience?

No. Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method.

So Christians need to throw together some formulas and tables and then you're OK with displays not being tantamount to religious persecution. OK. ((10 Commandments + 40 years) * (John 3:16 x 12)) = The path to salvation. Aren't there at least pseudoscience, astrological cancellation points for setting Easter by the lunar calendar?

Is Scientology a religion or a pseudoscience in your book?

The truth is that when you truly don't believe in something, you truly don't care about people doing it. True atheists would be the last people to get upset about issues such as nativity scenes.

[GL of Sector 2814]

How many examples do you want me to find for you? There are thousands, and I'm not going to waste my time with someone that is only asking me to do their Google search, so that they can claim it ultimately doesn't matter. If you don't believe there are any try Googling "ISU AND Zodiac". Then give me a number at which you will concede that I am correct, or admit that your counter is a red herring.

Such a search shows that there is indeed a zodiac at Iowa State University. As for there being "thousands" of zodiacs in public buildings nationwide...why don't I simply concede that there are a number of displays in public buildings, that will permit the argument to advance.

You've created this idea of "pseudoscience" to excuse what is in reality a very pointed anti-Christian tirade by atheists.

I didn't create the concept of pseudoscience, there's certainly no need to put it in quotes. Groups such as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry have been doing battle with pseudoscience in all its various forms for decades.

It would be most hilarious if a group were to claim an astrological belief in the nativity star and put out nativity scenes at the courthouse. Odds on that being accepted as harmless, non-religious pseudoscience?

Actually, I don't consider all pseudoscience to be harmless. While some of it is certainly harmless enough, thousands of people are victimized by homeopathy, psychic surgery, etc. Astrology is relatively harmless, if silly. If such a group did want to put such a scene in front of the courthouse along with the other such allowed displays, why shouldn't they? It would be harmless. Silly...but harmless.

Christians need to throw together some formulas and tables and then you're OK with displays not being tantamount to religious persecution.

When did I say that such displays were tantamount to religious persecution? This argument is about whether or not the Supreme Court would consider an astrological display on public property to be a violation of the Establishment Clause.

OK. ((10 Commandments + 40 years) * (John 3:16 x 12)) = The path to salvation.

As I said, pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method. The example you gave does not qualify. Creation Science certainly does, though.

You seem to have a problem with the concept of pseudoscience. Let's define terms. I've already given my definition of pseudoscience. What's yours?

Aren't there at least pseudoscience, astrological cancellation points for setting Easter by the lunar calendar?

Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon whose 14th day is on or after March 21st. While there may ultimately be astrological reasons for this (I'm really not sure), the actual method of determining the date of Easter is not pseudoscientific, any more than a Wiccan deciding to celebrate on the Vernal Equinox is pseudoscientific. It's simply an example of using an astronomical phenomena to choose a date for a celebration.

Is Scientology a religion or a pseudoscience in your book?

Scientology is interesting in that it's combined elements of religion (beliefs in something transcendental, rites and codes of behavior that reinforce those beliefs, and a community that is sustained by these beliefs and practices) and the pseudoscientific (E-meters, the whole thing with Xenu and the Galactic Confederacy, etc.). Which makes the answer "yes".

The truth is that when you truly don't believe in something, you truly don't care about people doing it. True atheists would be the last people to get upset about issues such as nativity scenes.

Incorrect. Do you think that all those guys at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, The Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic Magazine actually believe in fairies, UFOs, ghosts, ESP and the Loch Ness Monster...? They spend an awful lot of time debunking them, after all.

[SampleMan]

Actually, I don't consider all pseudoscience to be harmless. While some of it is certainly harmless enough, thousands of people are victimized by homeopathy, psychic surgery, etc. Astrology is relatively harmless, if silly. If such a group did want to put such a scene in front of the courthouse along with the other such allowed displays, why shouldn't they? It would be harmless. Silly...but harmless.

So nativity scenes are harmless unless they are put up for religious reasons, then they are an attack on Constitutional rights. Got it. I'll put the thought police on notice.

When did I say that such displays were tantamount to religious persecution? This argument is about whether or not the Supreme Court would consider an astrological display on public property to be a violation of the Establishment Clause.

The Establishment Clause is to protect the religious freedom of the minority from coercion (that is persecution). I most agree that to call any such public display persecution is a gross misuse of the word.

As I said, pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method. The example you gave does not qualify. Creation Science certainly does, though.

Are all other minority views on scientific theory (dinosaurs were killed by volcanoes) also pseudoscience, or just the ones that you don't like? As for equation, why doesn't it qualify? Do I need more charts, more mathematics, what? How about Louis Farrakhan? Is his mathematical genius qualify him as a pseudo scientist?

You seem to have a problem with the concept of pseudoscience. Let's define terms. I've already given my definition of pseudoscience. What's yours?

I have a problem with attaching it to astrology, because I am unaware of any claim by astrologers that there is any science involved. You threw out a catch all of "or the appearance of" in you definition, but that totally leaves it up to the opinion of the observer. I see absolutely to science or appearance there of involved. Method does not equate to a claim of science. Now acupuncture, that's a pseudoscience.

My point, which you have totally missed, is that I don't like the fact that you rely on the offended party to define the intent and the and nature of the offender's intent in order to outlaw exactly the same act as those you would allow. Thus it is really all about the presumably offended party exerting power over others.

Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon whose 14th day is on or after March 21st. While there may ultimately be astrological reasons for this (I'm really not sure), the actual method of determining the date of Easter is not pseudoscientific, any more than a Wiccan deciding to celebrate on the Vernal Equinox is pseudoscientific. It's simply an example of using an astronomical phenomena to choose a date for a celebration.

But when you define someone's inner soul by the phase of the moon they were born in, it has the appearance of scientific method to you. And you wonder why I don't want your opinions determining the legality of my actions.

Scientology is interesting.... Which makes the answer "yes".

So they can display half of their symbols without forcing religion on people?

Incorrect. Do you think that all those guys at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, The Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic Magazine actually believe in fairies, UFOs, ghosts, ESP and the Loch Ness Monster...? They spend an awful lot of time debunking them, after all.

I've never heard of them. Frankly, I don't believe that they exist. But more importantly, I've never felt the need to make someone remove books about UFOs or ghosts from public readubg rooms because I was afraid that coercion was taking place.

[GL of Sector 2814]

So nativity scenes are harmless unless they are put up for religious reasons, then they are an attack on Constitutional rights. Got it. I'll put the thought police on notice.

That is, in essence, what the Supreme Court has ruled. Please note that I never said that I agreed with the ruling. I also noted that the Supreme Court would not consider an astrological display on public property to be a violation of the Establishment Clause. You don't disagree, do you?

The Establishment Clause is to protect the religious freedom of the minority from coercion (that is persecution). I most agree that to call any such public display persecution is a gross misuse of the word.

I agree, it would be a gross misuse of the word. Did the Supreme Court use the word in that context?

Are all other minority views on scientific theory (dinosaurs were killed by volcanoes) also pseudoscience, or just the ones that you don't like?

It depends. If the minority view doesn't adhere to the scientific method and lacks supporting evidence, it's a pseudoscience. It's certainly possible to follow the scientific method and provide evidence and then simply come to the wrong conclusion. That's the beauty of science, though...it's self-correcting. While it never has The Truth, it comes closer over time.

As for equation, why doesn't it qualify? Do I need more charts, more mathematics, what?

In large part, yes. You would have to give a scientific veneer to your entire belief system, a la homeopathy, Malanin Theory, Velikovskism, etc.

How about Louis Farrakhan? Is his mathematical genius qualify him as a pseudo scientist?

The Nation of Islam certainly has some pseudoscientific elements in their beliefs (racial genetics among other things). I'm not aware of Farrakhan's genius, mathematical or otherwise. If he is a mathematical genius (I'm a bit, um, skeptical) that would not in and of itself make him a pseudoscientist.

I have a problem with attaching it to astrology, because I am unaware of any claim by astrologers that there is any science involved. You threw out a catch all of "or the appearance of" in you definition, but that totally leaves it up to the opinion of the observer. I see absolutely to science or appearance there of involved. Method does not equate to a claim of science. Now acupuncture, that's a pseudoscience.

Here's one of the first things I came up with on a search of "astrology" and "science":

http://www.akgupta.com/Thoughts/astrology.htm

Trust me on this, these people think that it's legitimate science. The essay compares astrology to medical science on an equal(!) basis. A quick search will finds megabytes of material like this.

My point, which you have totally missed, is that I don't like the fact that you rely on the offended party to define the intent and the and nature of the offender's intent in order to outlaw exactly the same act as those you would allow. Thus it is really all about the presumably offended party exerting power over others.

I don't rely on the offended party. The Supreme Court does. The whole point of this argument is to point out that the Supreme Court would not consider a zodiac on public property a violation of the Establishment Clause.

But when you define someone's inner soul by the phase of the moon they were born in, it has the appearance of scientific method to you.

I just provided evidence that astrologers consider their "craft" to be a true science. Do I need to provide more?

I never said that astrology appeared to me to use the scientific method. It puts on a veneer that fools the gullible and scientifically illiterate.

And you wonder why I don't want your opinions determining the legality of my actions.

What opinions regarding the legality of your actions have I expressed?

So they can display half of their symbols without forcing religion on people?

I think they can display all their symbols without forcing religion on people.

I've never heard of them. Frankly, I don't believe that they exist.

Skeptic Magazine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic_(U.S._magazine)
http://www.skeptic.com/

The Skeptical Inquirer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_inquirer
http://www.csicop.org/si/

The Committee For Skeptical Inquiry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Skeptical_Inquiry http://www.csicop.org/

I can only presume at this point that you will grant that the organizations and the people who run them do, in fact exist.

But more importantly, I've never felt the need to make someone remove books about UFOs or ghosts from public readubg rooms because I was afraid that coercion was taking place.

Neither do they. Their organizations exist for the purposes of educating and informing the public with a rational response to the flood of pseudoscience and occultism in today's world.

Now that you (presumably) believe in the existence of these people, I'll ask the question again:

Do you think that all those guys at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, The Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic Magazine actually believe in fairies, UFOs, ghosts, ESP and the Loch Ness Monster...? They spend an awful lot of time debunking them, after all

[SampleMan]

That is, in essence, what the Supreme Court has ruled. Please note that I never said that I agreed with the ruling. I also noted that the Supreme Court would not consider an astrological display on public property to be a violation of the Establishment Clause. You don't disagree, do you?

So do you agree with SCOTUS or not? I don't disagree with the fact that the SCOTUS has ruled in this manner, just as I don't disagree that it ruled in favor of slave masters in Dred Scott. My point has been that I don't agree with their decision. To paraphrase you, I find SCOTUS to be at best pseudo-constitutional, in that it has all the appearances of protecting our Constitutional rights, but doesn't actually do it.

As you agree, this ruling allows an unequal treatment of identical actions based on the premise of the party supposedly infringed. There is a difference between protecting a minority and empowering it to ride roughshod over the majority.

I agree, it would be a gross misuse of the word. Did the Supreme Court use the word [persecution] in that context?

Its either coercion or its not. If its not, then where is the argument to ban it. The historical standard is that rights get curbed when they infringe on another's rights. If there is no infringement, which in this case would be coercion, then there is absolutely no reason to curb people's religious rights. And if the freedom of religious expression is being curbed without any reason, then that's worse than the original charge. Religious coercion and religious persecution are synonymous.

It depends. If the minority view doesn't adhere to the scientific method and lacks supporting evidence, it's a pseudoscience. It's certainly possible to follow the scientific method and provide evidence and then simply come to the wrong conclusion. That's the beauty of science, though...it's self-correcting. While it never has The Truth, it comes closer over time.

In 2009 I'm more worried about the majority view not adhering to scientific method, but that's another thread. Interestingly, there are many currently pursued scientific studies that set aside contradicting facts or casually accept theories as facts, in order to "make things fit". This in itself doesn't trouble me, as it allows further study in what would otherwise be a dead end. That said, if I state that I have a fundamental problem with there being no scientific explanation (even a theory) for the creation of matter from nothing or the only other explanation the infinite existence of matter with no creation, then I'm labeled a religious nut that must be silenced by the power of law.

In large part, yes. You would have to give a scientific veneer to your entire belief system, a la homeopathy, Malanin Theory, Velikovskism, etc.

Don't you have a problem with the logic behind that?

Ref. Farrakhan being a mathematical genius: Check out his speech at the Million Man March. I'm sure it has to be on Youtube. It is well worth your time for the entertainment value. You'll see what I was talking about. I was being facetious.

Trust me on this, these people think that it's legitimate science. The essay compares astrology to medical science on an equal(!) basis. A quick search will finds megabytes of material like this.

Would you say that people who put stock in astrology do it more out of logic or faith? I'm not quibbling that they dress it up as science. I'm stating that doing so doesn't make it less of a religion. Look at it this way, let's say that a group of professors begin to teach that mathematics is the language of their god, that men like Pythagoras were his prophets and that you can only reach salvation by fully understanding his creation. I could go on, but you get the drift. Now are they scientific or are they religious? The answer is that they are both and they are no less religious because of their inclusion of science.

I can only presume at this point that you will grant that the organizations and the people who run them do, in fact exist.

I don't know, anyone can create a website. (I was joking. I do that sometimes.)

No the only thing I wonder is why people who don't believe that they are anything more than an infinitesimally short, accidental chemical reaction would waste that time trying to dispel anything that couldn't benefit them. Any result almost certainly would have no meaningful return for them during their brief life. It seems most illogical, therefore I must presume that it is something else. I can see a religious person taking time to be skeptical about such things, but I just don't understand an atheist bothering themselves.

Perhaps they've simply identified a means to a quick buck by selling the cynically minded what they want to hear?

[Cronos]

"Pontiff says People aren't governed by the Stars".

The Pope should come to Kalifournia. :)