When you believe in things that you don’t understand, then you suffer,
Superstition ain’t the way – Stevie Wonder

Yet another daft chapter of our species from the history books – there was a time that astrology was considered a relevant ’science’. And no, I’m not talking about the Oracle of Delphi. Much closer to our own time period, in fact.

The 1640s and 1650s marked a heyday in the history of astrology in Britain. Astrologers were openly consulted by prince and pauper, and such was their influence on daily life that on the 29th March 1652 it was reported “hardly any would work, none would stir out of their houses” because of an impending solar eclipse.[1] The excitement generated by the astrologers’ predictions of doom led to reports of the rich fleeing from London, farmers driving their cattle under cover, and markets being postponed.[2] Astrology at this time was part of everyone’s life, inherent in the language and prevalent in the customs of the period. The massive sale of astrological almanacs, which during this period outsold all publications except for the Bible, indicates the widespread accessibility and acceptance of astrological philosophy.

Sound familiar?

By the 1670s however, astrology began to fall into a serious decline. Astrologers were stripped of their right to make political statements affecting the Church or State and the public seemed to be losing interest. The educated and influential classes started to look upon astrology as, at worst, superstitious nonsense and dangerous propaganda, and at best, a study in dire need of research and refinement. Almanac sales slumped, and many previously successful and busy astrologers were noting a fall in the number of their clients.

I think much of that can be tracked down to the ’science’ not working at all. But evidently it rang a few bells:

Astrology and the Ecclesiastical Authorities often had a somewhat uncomfortable relationship. In general terms the Church was prepared to go along with a ‘natural’, or philosophical astrology, accepting Heaven’s influence in a broad, cultural sense, but ‘judicial’ astrology, which dealt with individual predictions, met with staunch opposition; this was felt to undermine the supreme power of the Creator and the freewill of the individual to make the best of his circumstances. The Body of the Church held considerable power and wealth, so any tenet of faith that conflicted with their dogma exposed itself as a theological opponent and threat to the political scheme. Matters were hardly facilitated when, in 1631, an ambitious astrologer predicted the death of Pope Urban VIII, the effect being that many cardinals met to discuss who should succeed him whilst he was still alive and well. A Papal Bull condemning astrology was issued by the exasperated Pope, and the Church’s tolerance with astrology fell to an all-time low. The monopoly of almanac publication had been renewed to the Company of Stationers by James I in 1603, and under the auspices of the government, they ensured that all published predictions were kept relatively tame and harmless.

The prediction, of course, failed. The consequences were predictable.

The article linked is an apologetic written by and for other believers. It tries to paint the picture of persecution – ‘awww, those poor little dears! Why, there must be something to it, if people are against it!”

No, there isn’t. It’s all superstitious dreck. How on earth would someone prove that it was the invisible tentacles of electro-magnetism stemming from Mars that results in the need for anger management? Can’t be done. Or that somehow, the feeblest of gravimetric motes from Venus makes one a superior lover? Can’t be done.

In short, how can it be proven that just one planet (not the planet earth, I might note) has any impact whatsoever on an individual? How does one measure this sans the century-old tomes that claim it? How do you winnow out this ephemeral influence, put a yardstick to it, lick the thumb and take aim with one eye at it?

I will, upon my return from a well-deserved vacation, take an ample swing at the folks who claim there is such evidence.

So stay tuned, true un-believers.

Till the next post, then.

As I (I’ll admit after more than a fair share of Bushmills) look around at my profession and my family, I couldn’t help but think of a nice little ditty from Bertrand’s Autobiography that actually reminded me of Sean:

Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind.

I’ve always found these words very moving, and wanted to share…

Ah, the joys of looking like utter morons to the rest of the world (as if we don’t already)…

As ‘pubs jump ship — and get death threats in doing so…

Come on, ‘pubs: WWJD?…

OK, I confess, I just thought this was funny – though not to the Mavericks, it seems…

[snippet] “I’m just enraged that McCain calls himself a maverick,” said Terrellita Maverick, 82, a San Antonio native who proudly carries the name of a family that has been known for its progressive politics since the 1600s, when an early ancestor in Boston got into trouble with the law over his agitation for the rights [my emphasis] of indentured servants [but conversely was one of the first owners of black slaves in the colonies].

It appears that Ms. Maverick’s ancestor Samuel Augustus Maverick (in pic), a Texas cattleman who among other acts signed the Texas Declaration of Independence, had a habit of not branding his livestock, which led to unbranded cattle being called “Maverick’s” and later “mavericks.” The term then became applied to people who also stand out from the herd, so to speak: “refuse to abide by the dictates of or resist adherence to a group; dissenter[s]; [are] independent in thought and action or exhibit such independence” (The Free Dictionary).

The Maverick family didn’t just inherit this legacy, but have continued to illustrate it as well. Ol’ Sam’s grandson Fontaine Maury Maverick, who won both a Silver Star and Purple Heart in World War I, got himself labelled a “Communist” by conservatives, costing him his re-election bid for San Antonio mayor. He went on to serve the Roosevelt Administration in the Smaller War Plants Corporation and coined a term of his own, “gobbledygook;” we use it nowadays mostly as a synonym for any gibberish, but Maury Sr. was referring to the dense bureaucratic language that so infuriated him.

His son Maury Jr., a World War II veteran (Marines), kept up the family tradition as a civil libertarian, lawyer, Texas legislator, and columnist who defended those “scorned by society,” like atheists and draft resisters, with a famed passion. His last piece (I’m still looking for it), published post-mortem by The San Antonio Express-News, strongly spoke out against the impending Iraqi invasion. And his sister Terrellita herself is no slouch, either; she’s a member emeritus of the board of the San Antonio chapter of the ACLU.

[snippet] “It’s just incredible — the nerve! — to suggest that he’s not part of that Republican herd. Every time we hear it, all my children and I and all my family shrink a little and say, ‘Oh, my God, he said it again.’ ”

“He’s a Republican,” she said. “He’s branded.”

The black philosopher’s idea was that a man is not independent, and cannot afford views which might interfere with his bread and butter. If he would prosper, he must train with the majority; in matters of large moment, like politics and religion, he must think and feel with the bulk of his neighbors, or suffer damage in his social standing and in his business prosperities. He must restrict himself to corn-pone opinions — at least on the surface. He must get his opinions from other people; he must reason out none for himself; he must have no first-hand views. – Mark Twain: Corn Pone Opinions

If there’s a political party that is likely to receive a Darwin Award, it most definitely (in my mind) has to be the GOP. These retards keep bankrupting the country (From Regan to Bush and Clone Bush), they’ve done nothing but lead America into financial ruin. And in pursuit of what? Keeping the status quo static at all costs, turning back the clock to a fantasy time that never was, yearning and burning for a utopic society that marches in white picket fence synchronicity.

The latest and ‘greatest’ is more of the blithering idiocy from the ‘Governor next door’ (didn’t she do a fold-out pictorial in the Nome issue of Guns ‘N Ammo?’ No? Would be no shock if she had or did: the GOP is notorious for hypocrisy):

Palin heightens rhetoric on abortion

JOHNSTOWN, Pennsylvania (CNN) — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin charged into the culture wars Saturday in Pennsylvania, painting Sen. Barack Obama as a radical on abortion rights.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin speaks at a rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, Saturday.

The stop comes amid news that Palin violated Alaska ethics law by trying to get her former brother-in-law fired from the state police, a state investigator’s report for the bipartisan Legislative Council concluded Friday.

Ethics woes aside, Palin focused her attention on abortion — an issue that rallies the conservative base but some say alienates independent and women voters.

I’ve come to notice, that when a woman tends to be ‘pro-life’ (AKAP anti-abortion), they also tend to be pretty darn well-fed. The inference being, is that as a rule, they can actually afford to raise children. Personally, I’m both pro-choice and pro-life (no, no, no, I’m not wishy-washy, you can take both those terms out of their political connotative context: I’m mean them literally). Basically, the liberal refrain ‘rare, safe, and legal’.

But, as always, the Right is wrong.

You don’t want abortion? You don’t want prostitution? You don’t want illegal immigrants?

Hey, really folks, the answer is actually way easier than you think.

Combat poverty.

That’s right. All those multiple millions you’ve pissed away on miniscule band-aids for those huge gaping wounds? Put that into education. All those dollars spent combating the symptom instead of addressing the pathology? Should’ve put them into feeding the poor. All those billions poured into battling bugaboos like gay marriage, vice squads, all those lost bucks on faith-based abstinence-only failures and creationist crap fests – it’s squandered money.

Feed the poor. Raise their standard of living to something closer to the US middle class. Educate them.

Because you can’t eat prayers. You can’t feed starving children on hosannas.

Because the old texts are wrong. Man does live on bread alone.

Till the next post, then.

I have been struggling with more medical problems lately, hence the lack of written posts. Now that I have been having another bout of frustrating medical problems, the magical emails and messages have started to come and so I must do a little venting here. Wait around for awhile and fundies will supply you with a something to bitch about. This post was “inspired” by a close relative who knows me well, and knows that I am not even open to the idea of god belief. She sent me an email about how god touches everyone and how she has touched me and the people she sent it to and anyone I forward it on to. Apparently this god can do nothing without magical emails and special magical messages for everyone to be “touched” by this god, and in turn I am supposed to forward the magical email to others like some sort of Chinese telephone magical god game. This god never speaks for himself. And they make up lots of pretty explanations of why god needs to communicate via humans. God talk always relies on other humans to “pass the word”. When I respond with something like “god is inside human imagination, whatever the person imagines this god to be. Just like any other sort of fiction.” They get pissed off and go into persecution mode.

I wanted so badly to write back: “These touchy-feely emails are invented BY HUMANS, and passed around BY HUMANS, with a HUMAN MESSAGE. No one would even know about your religion if HUMANS didn’t go around talking about it. Nothing happens without human intervention!” But I controlled myself like I always do because it is a close family member.

Now, back to sending religious fundie emails to sick people. . . What’s wrong with just sending a HUMAN message of concern? Why do people have to use a time people are sick to zero in to push their own version of this god crap? That is very disrespectful when the ones sending it know the beliefs of the person who they are sending it too, and doubly inconsiderate to send it at a time when we need HUMAN support and help, not some magical wishes about a magical being who I can never even believe in (and when those forwards raise blood pressure– not because of the message itself since we think it’s a bunch of hooey, but the idea of knowing why they are sending it…to try to get you while you are not feeling good. It’s very inconsiderate to take advantage of sick and injured people for one’s own selfish purposes of pushing their own personal beliefs.

I could send out atheist forwards to these people, but do not because I can let most of this crap slide. For one, I recognize that it is their right to believe however they want. But if I did send out emails telling them they need to get rid of the delusional beliefs, they would get all shitty about it and never speak to me again for dissing their delusion. Even when we try to tell them even nicely to keep their religion to themselves, it causes some of them to have an emotional meltdown, they cry, accuse me of hurting them for rejecting their silly god beliefs — some even went so far as to shut me out of their lives. I don’t reject them, but I do reject the crap they are trying to sell me. There are millions of things to talk about, and I don’t find a problem talking with most people about all kinds of things. But for the fundies, it always goes back to their own version of god beliefs. They cannot see that their beliefs are interfering with real living and relationships with others.

It’s all so unnecessary, this endless god peddling that drives a wedge between friends and family members. Most of my friends and family members believe in some version of god and yet only a few who find themselves to be more “holy” than anyone else and have “true beliefs” have the problem with respecting the beliefs or non-beliefs of others. It’s so very sad that religion also makes people change. While those people who have become more and more “devout” may say I have changed, it is not me. I have never believed in god or the Jesus zombie story unquestioningly even as a Christian. I did the church thing as a tradition when the kids were growing up, because it’s how I grew up in a country that is predominantly Christian. I now reject it, but I am still the same person that I have always been. I do not go around preaching atheism to family membes and friends. While I support atheist organizations and movements within the internet realm, and I have a blog, I rarely talk about my non-belief even when people make comments about their magical friend.

The ones who HAVE changed cannot see it. They cannot see how pompous and self-righteous they appear to others. They cannot see that their religion is no different now than before. Lack of god belief isn’t causing the economic crisis, lack of god belief doesn’t cause medical problems, lack of god belief doesn’t cause misfortunes to happen. Non-believers bounce back from problems just like believers, because of human actions. Things usually get better in time if PEOPLE work to correct the problems. But if people don’t do somthing, no god comes. If people don’t go to have surgery, therapy, take medicine…no god comes. If people don’t work to pay their bills and manage their money intelligently, no god comes. If people build their house in low-lying flood areas, no god comes to stop the floodwaters when we get a freak rain. I wish the people who push their religion on others would actually stop and consider who is really in charge in their lives. THEY are.