Sorry to go all Godwin’s law, but astrology can and has been used as a tool of oppression. Nazi Germany had a state-sponsored astrologer, Karl Ernst Krafft, appointed by Deputy Führer Rudolf Hess and Chief Propagandist Joseph Goebbels. Krafft was employed to write astrological propaganda that justified anti-semitism on the basis of celestial events. He was also tasked with using astrological observations to predict threats to the Führer Adolf Hitler and offer military advice.
Ultimately, it’s not the stars and Moon that do the oppression, just whoever is in charge of divining their meaning, which is also pretty much how religious oppression works.
It’s almost as if certain types of people want to be assholes but want an irrefutable entity to say it’s okay.
Never trust someone else’s imaginary friend over one’s own.
Here’s a thought: go one further. Kill all gods & masters.
We will only be free when the last monarch is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
Repair world hunger with a woodchipper & fertilizer tumbler… Yeet The Rich.
Eh not giving up my kinks, but everyone needs to have the right to say no or it’s not fun.
(sorry, the homebrewed anamist theism is too fun right now, and i got a puppy boy that’s counting on me so… upvotes for thoroughness and enthusiasm)
Religion is a lot like genitals, enjoy yours in places that people are cool with that happening but only share them with the willing and don’t be an asshole just because someone else’s are different.
Religion has been the single most detrimental invention of humankind since civilization’s dawn.
To the other point, since nearly that same catalyzing point in our history, undying Truth itself can be found in the loving eyes of a goodest boy. (source: my own life has been saved by one on more than a few occasions and ways. 🙇🏼♂️🐕🥰)
Nancy Reagan had an astrologer.
Nancy Reagan has an astrologer.
Does he pack a shovel if she calls him?
Changed my verb tense. :)
Reagan too. Basically his whole second term was just his astrologer.
Religion, as in faith in God, doesn’t oppress anyone. Religion, the institution, oppresses people. If astrology had a comparable institution, it would absolutely oppress people.
Faith oppresses the believer himself because it requires a willingness to believe in things without proof. It’s like saying AIDS doesn’t kill people because it merely weakens their immune system. Astrology believers are primed to believe anything, and often get scammed by their astrologers.
It’s like saying AIDS doesn’t kill people because it merely weakens their immune system.
Which is accurate. It’s the infection or cancer that kills you, like the priest or the astrologer oppresses you. The belief might make you more susceptible to oppression, but it’s not what’s oppressing you.
So you don’t understand what he’s saying… interesting.
They don’t understand what I’m saying. Oppression is a specific phenomenon. Becoming susceptible to oppression is not the same thing as being oppressed.
No one is saying aids isn’t deadly/dangerous here except you.
I never said it wasn’t dangerous.
Faith in good doesn’t need organized religion. That’s just being spiritual.
This is an area where terminology gets real fuzzy. “Spiritual” is inherently vague and individualistic. I’m referring more to personal faith in a particular sect: read specific texts, pray in a particular way, organize your metaphysical model in line with an established religious tradition.
Generally I don’t like to reference specific religious texts, my beliefs are much too syncretic for that, but I was raised Christian, and for all the faults of the various Christian institutions, Jesus himself seems pretty based:
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.
But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
If someone practices Christian dogma that way, I’d be hesitant to call them oppressed or an oppressor. It’s still definitely a specific religion, but it’s engagement with the emergent power structure that causes the oppression.
Astrology has specifically oppressed swaths of women in the Indian subcontinent. Search for “manglik” for starters.
I’ve seen plenty of instances of people being treated unfairly and unjustly due to religious astrology beliefs. Especially women (of Indian descent, also Chinese but my experience is more limited there).
Extremely white bitch. I got it too!
It turns out shit people will use anything as an excuse to be shit. Makes dating hard(er).
my boy andres had a girl reject him just because he’s a vigo
One of the weirdest far-right slurs I’ve seen flung at Muslims is “Moon Worshiper”. Like, someone on AM Radio must have gone on a serious tear, because it comes up in reactionary church sermons and Facebook posts and the occasional Congressional exchange.
Something about having even a casual association with extraterrestrial bodies really sets Christian Conservatives off.
That is kinda weird, but I don’t think it’s that much weirder than some random wannabe slur with “cross” in it.
Those morons just have seen the symbols of Islam and don’t know what they symbolise or where they come from, or that they in fact aren’t the objects of worship.
A belief system that makes claims which are demonstrably untrue is susceptible to being used to oppress people (or elevate them unnecessarily).
Astrology is bunk. Yes I am fun at parties.
It is legit frustrating to see “my superstition never hurt anyone” in the minority very quickly become “we’re rounding up all the non-believers” as soon as that same group get an ounce of power.
FFS, waves hand at Israel. Also, the Mormons, the Scientologists, Jonestown…
I dunno, I’ve heard many women and gays complaining that Mercury is retrograding them, or something. /s
Given the chance, Saturn would remove women’s right to vote.
Typical Saturn energy.
Dammit Saturn I thought you were cool
If the moon doesn’t oppress women, then why is the menstrual cycle the same length as the lunar cycle?
Checkmate,
atheistsastrologists!Thats only cis women though.
And also some trans men.
And some genderqueers.
So…
in other news, you’re not racist if you only oppress 98% of black people but allow a small number through.
Depends how fine a mesh youre using, moisture content, all sorts of stuff im.not an expert in.
okay, yes, I agree, but your mesh is poor in the point you were making. It’s not transphobic to say that society is misogynistic if it makes life hard for people with afab anatomy. And uh… that the moon is oppressing women too I guess? What were we even talking about…
Rebellion against heaven, mocking the laws of man and god as we shatter the spheres of oppression that mock us nightly and, you know… Do stuff.
sounds like we’re in agreement
But not because they’re bigot-rocks, just because its cool. Whether they’re bigot rocks or not.
Additionally, the stars and moon actually exist.
Only people can oppress people.
there’s one star that is oppressing albino women and gays though
A lot of folk religions exalt third genders and women into religious positions. It is the major world religions who put down women and third genders are the problem.
Hey, if the stars and planets affect people’s behaviour… Just saying.
One could argue that they lift people up, since there’s a slight canceling of the effect of Earth’s gravity when they’re over head. Conversely, the opposite is true when they’re on the other side of the planet.
The gravitational effect is only meaningful from the Moon and the Sun.
The Moon obviously affects the tides, and is very, very slowly making our days longer.
The Sun is … you know, the center of the Solar System, defines our entire orbit, our year.
Nothing else is massive enough or close enough to have a meaningful gravitational impact.
Right, the post mentions “the Moon and stars.” Last I checked, the Moon is still the Moon and the Sun is a star.
Also, I didn’t say anything about the effect being meaningful. An effect that is non-zero is still an effect even if it is negligible.
I mean, if you want to be this pedantic…
‘the stars’
99.999…% of ‘the stars’ are not the Sun.
99.999…% of ‘the Moon and the stars’ are neither the Moon nor the Sun.
And… I know you didn’t say meaningful.
I did. That’s my counter argument to your … hypothetical? argument.
Further, when I say ‘negligible’ I mean… not actually empirically observable, not statistically different from 0, thus you could not establish any kind of causal mechanism with any legitimate basis.
Sure, you could calculate a theory of the difference of overall gravitational effect of ‘the stars’, but its going to be again negligible compared to local gravitational variances of the Earth itself, due to the Earth not being perfectly uniformly spherical, nor perfectly radially uniformly dense.
That is a good point.
No it’s not.
Reagan’s astrologer, who was consulted on policy decisions:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Quigley
The best thing you can say for court mystics of any creed is that they’re just the convenient excuse for the behavior, not the cause.
It really isn’t. Things can be better than other things and still be bad.
deleted by creator
