All seems a bit strange.

You would have thought a clever casino owner in Nevada would want to set up their own astrologers in the area and get them to tell people tonight was their lucky night.

Following this logic through, Steve Wynn, Trump and others with big financial stakes in the gaming industry here have a lot to protect because there is a huge segment of the population of Nevada who generates income from this, so any potential threat to that is taken very seriously. If gambling became illegal in Nevada, the state unemployment rate would probably be well above 50% which of course would devastate the tax base. Given the current political and economic climate, I don't think it would be wise to try to change the laws regarding the practice of astrology in Nevada.

It would be risky and probably not worth it as the casinos make loads anyway, particularly from those with stelliums in Sagittarius, in theory(or one of them).

I would have thought they use plenty of psychologists to teach them how to get people to part with their money, without them realising they are being subliminally motivated to do so.

Which in some ways is just as unethical, albeit pure capitalism.

GR wrote:
No I imagine it's done with the intent that all astrologers are potential frauds and this is done to dissuade them, like they were "gypsy" tarot readers. Very icky.

Just go into any Psychic Eye bookstore in Vegas and ask for an astrology reading and you will probably get a Tarot reader who pretends to know astrology. I did this as a test a few times and grilled one of them giving them a history lesson. The guy was shocked when he found out who I was and looked pretty embarrassed and then he didn't want to charge me. This is what happens when standards aren't met in a field of study or in a profession and the need for quick cash lowers standards of ethics. I've seen it happen, so personally I'm not a bit surprised about the law in Nevada because there are some pretty nefarious characters who have tried to prey on tourists gambling in casino's by any means possible.

Maybe the real danger to astrology comes from astrologers themselves. I feel worried about the plain hostility of some astrologers towards science. When I was searching a bit about Blavatsky, I found this:

Blavatsky wrote:This is the great difference between the Semitic and the Aryan Cosmogony; one materializing, humanizes the mysteries of nature; the other spiritualizes matter, and its physiology is always made subservient to metaphysics.

When I read this, I realized that this rhetoric still prevails in today?s astrology, and it is because of this view that I sometimes have ambivalent feelings towards astrology.

This is not as far-fetched as it might sound to people unfamiliar with the extreme right wing religious faction in the US. I keep an eye on that segment of the sociopolitical spectrum by monitoring a thriving religious television station based in Midland, Texas: there, the guests continually decry God's wrath against "occultists" who practice astrology and yoga (of all things).

I have the impression that the motivation behind anti-astrology positions in the US is rather religious than scientific. It seems that little has changed in four centuries. See for example Keith Thomas - ?Religion and the decline of magic?, about the wane of astrology in the 1700?s, p.418

The clergy and the satirists chased it to its grave but the scientists were unrepresented at the funeral.

It?s quite contradictory that the US, once a safe haven for deviant religious groups of any kind during the 17th century religious wars in Europe, accommodate Christian intolerant fundamentalists whilst fighting Islamic fundamentalism at several places in the world.

Some astrologers might seem hostile to science Eddy, but I don?t believe that most of us are. In general when astrologers are defensive it is because some of the attacks used to discredit astrology are based on disingenuous reports that obfuscate the real issues. Take this 13th sign nonsense ? we all know that there are intelligent arguments to be made against astrology, because it is embedded with a lot of symbolic contradictions, but astrologers are usually more than willing to engage with the serious issues, and we can be very critical of the subject ourselves within our own communities. But it?s the same old tactics that get used to discredit astrology at a popular level, and it is time that the old chestnuts like this one were put to bed. I don?t have much to time to comment in the forum at the moment unfortunately ? my January days are jam packed with commitments, but I have prepared a comment about this issue which I was intending to publish on the next ingress as part of the next set of updates. Since the issue is so current I?ve decided to publish today instead. But I would like to say that although these kind of issues infuriate me ? I don?t have a dim view of science generally. Even so, when astrologers are placed under attack, it?s only fair that we get our own chance to respond to the accusations.
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/13thsign.html


(PS - I would much prefer to see this thread focussed on the opening topic, rather than sliding into an off-topic discussion)

Thanks, Deb, that's a great piece and I'm glad you decided to publish it now - I'll be referring people to it, as I'm still getting calls and e-mails about this business.

Deb wrote:...But it?s the same old tactics that get used to discredit astrology at a popular level, and it is time that the old chestnuts like this one were put to bed.

There are even more old chestnuts... I wrote an article in the late 90's about the kinds of historical arguments that have been used against astrology and their refutations, precession being but a modern twist:

http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-file ... dence.html

Curtis, that is an excellent article. Thank you for posting the link.

I like this one.

http://www.examiner.com/astrology-in-na ... rnalism-is

No one's sun sign has changed, despite the misinformation about the constellation Ophiuchus that is scampering around the web this week in reaction to some completely amateurish reporting. What has changed is that journalists used to have editors who would do fact-checking and require reporters to consult with someone who actually knew something about the subject matter before they would rush a story into print.....

She summarized exactly what I was thinking. The real story is not about astrology. It is about how journalism was not that great 20 years ago, but now is moved by hysteria and twitter messages.

Yes, that's a wonderful piece that really hits the mark.