Astrological disparagement

And when it comes to talking about religion, Digby is arguing (seriously) that we shouldn't criticize a literal belief in astrology (Mainstream Beliefs 06/27/06):

Atrios mentions this kerfluffle about Jerome Armstrong being a believer in astrology and how it's scandalized certain elements of the wingnutosphere (and the left blogosphere, too.) His point is that a belief in astrology is no less mainstream than many of the religious beliefs people hold --- beliefs which we secular liberals must be very, very careful not to disparage or be accused of ruining everything for the Democrats.

Let me tell you, it is as big a faux pas to disparage astrology or any of the new age or non-traditional spiritual belief system as it is to put down mainstream religion.

Well, if Nancy Reagain could insist that "Ronnie's" speeches be scheduled in alignment with her San Francisco astrologer's advice, I suppose we could say the belief is "mainstream" in the sense that lots of people believe it.  (Billmon provides some good background on this in Star Crossed 06/28/06.)

But most religious people make a distinction between religion and superstition, with superstition being understood as the ability to read  messages from the divine through physical signs (stars, chicken innards, etc.) or being able to manipulate divine powers through some sort of conjuration, i.e., magic.

The village atheist will tell you, of course, that belief in God is just as "superstitious" as belief in astrology.  But actually, someone minimally familiar with the contemporary Christian position on the subject can tell you that Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the earth.  For most Christians, who aren't trying to turn it into a science textbook, one of the theological implications of that is that the stars are part of God's creation, not independent divinities that determine the fates of human beings.

But as far as public policy, neither astrology nor creationism/"intelligent design" should be taught in science classes as science.  Nor should they be used in public science endeavors because they aren't science.

But since religious beliefs are now an extremely prominent part of the "public square", it's legitimate to wonder whether it's optimal or desirable for a public official, especially the President with his authority to launch a nuclear war, should be making decisions based on astrological charts or voices from God in his own head.

For more on astrology, see The Skeptic Annotated Bibliography - Astrology from the Center for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).