Please Help: New Orleans Tarot Readers Under Threat

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

My friend Ricky just IMed me about a bill in the New Orleans City Council called Ordinance 24,708. Its aim is to make tarot reading in Jackson Square (or anywhere else in New Orleans) illegal.

On what grounds, exactly?

Ricky is a tarot reader, and he relies on this to supplement his income. Plus, I know practically all the Readers in the Square. They are nice people who wish no harm on anyone.

Okay, here I've got to object. Wishing no harm or not, the fact of the matter is that there are people who take this stuff seriously. Tarot readers (and "readers" of other varieties) are taking the money of gullible people who believe that this stuff is for real. You can say it's "for entertainment purposes only" all you want, but what are you providing in return for the money people are giving you? The answer is simple: Nothing.

Next, would you like to ask us to help you defend panhandlers? The people who pose as homeless people and beg for cash on the sidewalks, raking in up to a couple hundred TAX FREE dollars an hour, doing basically nothing? You could argue that they give people peace of mind, making them think that they helped out a homeless person, but that peace of mind is a flagrant lie.

I'd seriously be interested on what grounds this bill is planning on making tarot readings illegal, however. Maybe this could be adopted by some state governments as well.

A quick hop onto Google found the following:

Link to New Orleans City Council.

Ostensibly, it appears that Ordinance 24,708 seems to be aimed at cleaning up the square, and turning it over to artists.

In other matters, the Council unanimously supported the establishment of the Artist Set Up Area on the perimeter of Jackson Square for use by visual artists holding “A” permits. Ordinance Calendar Number 24,708, sponsored by all Councilmembers, allows artists to create and display works in this area, while assisting in the preservation of the character of the French Quarter. According to District C Councilmember Jacquelyn Brechtel Clarkson, lead author, today’s action restored the Jackson Square Artists Colony, established by the Constitution of the 1920’s.

(Emphasis mine)

It seems clear that what they are doing here is cleaning up parts of town and trying to bring them back to a more ideal condition. Cities do this revitalization stuff all the time. It isn't religious discrimination, and it probably needs doing.

[Hotfoot]

A quick hop onto Google found the following:

Link to New Orleans City Council.

Ostensibly, it appears that Ordinance 24,708 seems to be aimed at cleaning up the square, and turning it over to artists.

I don't see anything wrong with that then. I also don't see how it makes it illegal to do tarot readings illegal anywhere in New Orleans, as Einhander has claimed.

It seems clear that what they are doing here is cleaning up parts of town and trying to bring them back to a more ideal condition. Cities do this revitalization stuff all the time. It isn't religious discrimination, and it probably needs doing.

Well, there we go then, I guess that settles it, unless someone can provide more evidence to support Einhander's claims.

It's not necessarily religious.. but it can be used ceremonially.

I think this is the point. While it can be used for religious purposes, the uses in question are not religious. Besides which, as I understand wicca/paganism, one does not charge a fixed rate for a tarot reading. Rather, the person recieving the reading offers the reader something in compensation for the reading, depending on how useful they found it. That can mean anything from a smile, a meal, a kiss, a gift, or, yes, even money, but it is never supposed to be a set amount.

I personally don't. Hell, I hardly even use it as a measure to determine what will happen. It's more of an advice column, of sorts.

Advice columns get blasted when they give bad advice or repeat faulty information though. Also, it doesn't cost anything to send a letter to Ann Landers (aside from the price of the stamp).

[Colonel Olrik]

Tarot Reading is a hoax, like it or not. At most, it can be said harmless (from the economical point of view) if it is given free of charge, like the Catholic Church services my parents attended. From the psycological point of view, it is generally not more dangerous than any other religious cult. It offers hope to the naive, even if groundless.

For my part, I'm very annoyed since two or three of those guys started appearing on my TV annunciating their services on a hotline. It's robbing the more naive and desperate people, no better than a vicious religious cult. I wouldn't mind if such publicity was outlawed. As for outlawing the card reading itself, I don't support it without outlawing other things as well, which will never be. However, the activity should be strictly regulated, to prevent abuses.

Einhander, what Durandal said.

verilon, people have the right to call paganism, ghosts, cardreading, etc a fraud, and present their reasons for it. In a board with this stance towards science, logic and brutal honesty, you can't expect otherwise. The only insults I've seen so far have been made by you and Einhander defending your ideas by flaming the ones who dare to criticize them. At least, most Christian among us put some effort into it.

[Frank Hipper]

On New Orleans "cleaning up" by throwing out psychics and opening up for artists: I think keeping a mix of vendors, whether they're hawking bad landscapes or horoscopes, would increase the "flavor" and character of the setting. If somebody wants to shell out money for a sad clown painting or their future, so what? They're all just sidewalk vendors to me. Let 'em do their thing. Venice Beach would be a pretty goddamned boring place without the fringe element, and I suspect the same is true here.

[Xon]

All that quote said, was that they would need a permit to do their stuff there.

And most probable, Tarot Reading doesnt qualify for some reason. The reason why a Tarot Reader could be a) they dont want to pay money to get the permit, b) have known complains against the person c) have known complains against the practice.

I'm agreeing here that Tarot Reading is a hoax. I find Colonel Olrik views very reasonable.

And verilon & Einhander Sn0m4n have both reacted very very poorly to in this thread.

[haas mark]

ggs - and what happens when someone attacks your personal beliefs and calls them a hoax? You'd try to defend them, no matter how much against the norm they are. Right?

[Lagmonster]

Okay...Tarot reading IS a hunk of shit, but then, so are pretty much ALL religious, spiritual, or other forms of belief.

The thing here, that's been asked a few times, but never covered, is WHY is the reading illegal. Einy, you even said that it's a CITY by-law or whatever (the kind used to prevent things like soliciting and trespassing) and that its focus is to make reading illegal in a specific area (forgot the name, a square, I believe?).

Thus, what is the focus? To suppress non-Christian things, or to clear a city square of camped out con artists (and before the inevitable, YES, the psychic-tarot-etc game has a history of being crammed with con artists).

Have there been complaints of behaviour? Is there a city law prohibiting people from selling things (like sidewalk artists) in the square?

The problem might be the location, not the practice. Then again, it might not. Knowing WHY the by-law is being considered might help you fight to re-define it (it might be as simple as a registration process or going somewhere else).

[Colonel Olrik]

ggs - and what happens when someone attacks your personal beliefs and calls them a hoax? You'd try to defend them, no matter how much against the norm they are. Right?

Not by telling the person challenging them to go shoot themselves, but by presenting facts proving your beliefs and debating them, or else aknowledge them as irrational and don't claim they're valid.

Juke like the other religious people around here.

[haas mark]

ggs - and what happens when someone attacks your personal beliefs and calls them a hoax? You'd try to defend them, no matter how much against the norm they are. Right?

Not by telling the person challenging them to go shoot themselves, but by presenting facts proving your beliefs and debating them, or else aknowledge them as irrational and don't claim they're valid.

Juke like the other religious people around here.

I realize I shouldn't have said what I did say, but it really doesn't mater now ~ I was just pissed off, stressed out, and depressed, and I vented in the wrong way. In any case, beliefs shouldn't have to be proven, because it wouldn't be believed by you or any other number of atheists anyways. So what do facts and proof matter if it's a belief system? IT DOESN'T.

[Colonel Olrik]

I realize I shouldn't have said what I did say, but it really doesn't mater now ~ I was just pissed off, stressed out, and depressed, and I vented in the wrong way.

OK, but you should refrain that temper of yours.

In any case, beliefs shouldn't have to be proven, because it wouldn't be believed by you or any other number of atheists anyways.

Don't be foolish. If you presented clear, irrefutable facts that cardreading works, I'd be forced to believe you and look for a scientific explanation of the phenomenon. The fact is that you can't do it, so you choose for the fundie tactic of calling fool play when someone says that what you believe is not true.

So what do facts and proof matter if it's a belief system? IT DOESN'T.

A belief system that claims to provide answers to real life events. If it claims it, them facts and proof do count.

[Lagmonster]

I realize I shouldn't have said what I did say, but it really doesn't mater now ~ I was just pissed off, stressed out, and depressed, and I vented in the wrong way. In any case, beliefs shouldn't have to be proven, because it wouldn't be believed by you or any other number of atheists anyways. So what do facts and proof matter if it's a belief system? IT DOESN'T.

The way things are, if we can take all the paranormal and supernatural, wrap it up into one big ball of self-con-artistry, illusion and ignorance of natural processes and phenomenon, that no matter what you believe, you are going to meet aggressive opposition from the world at large, because there just isn't any reason *to* believe in the first place.

I could go on for hours (boring the board in the process) talking about all the fruits and nuts of the standard Hippy Jim and Spiritual Sue types I've met in my life as a course of having a lifelong fascination with folklore (though not enough of a fascination for me to not have stopped chasing the subject a while back). All of these people, like any spiritualist or religionist, use their beliefs as a crutch for when they don't want to challenge grim, uncompromising, uncertain reality.

Thought: Ask yourself what you would believe if it was proven as far as can be done so that these powers you believe in don't exist? What would you do then?

[Darth Wong]

This is religious discrimination. If they don't plan on banning churches, they have no right to ban tarot card readers.

How is it religious discrimination? Tarot card readers like this are not performing a religious rite, they are providing a service.

And what's a church service, then? Do you know how many churches expect you to "tithe", ie- give a fixed percentage of your income to them in exchange for their religious services? Why aren't we banning this?

There are "legitimate" tarot card readers out there, who DO believe in it as a part of a religious system, but they tend not to charge money for their services, and they look down in distain at the people who do charge $30 a reading. It's still a lot of flim-flam, but at least they aren't fleecing people in the process.

Caveat emptor. People know what they're paying for. If they happen to believe in it, there's no problem.

[Darth Wong]

Einhander, out of curiousity, if it suddenly became illegal to send spam, and all the spammers in the world suddenly went out of business, would you defend them? Would you demand that spam be legal in order that these people might continue to have jobs spamming? Otherwise, the spammers would be without jobs, and thus being a burden on their fellow citizen, just because of some government asshole's personal vendetta against spam.

Spam is intrusive. Tarot card readers are not. They don't force their way into your computer and demand that you pay attention to them.

Or, to return to the previous (and more fitting) example, panhandlers. Should panhandling be made illegal? It would deprive the panhandlers of their source of income, thus causing them to be unemployed. Just because of some government asshole's vendetta against panhandlers.

Panhandling is illegal, and it should be. Panhandlers do not provide a service of any kind (like it or not, the people who pay for tarot card readings regard it as a service), and they are intrusive, ie- they interrupt you as you're walking down the street trying to mind your own business. Would you ban those psychic hot-lines next?

[Darth Wong]

Tarot reading is harmless. The service is consensual.

By the same argument, then so are the 419 scams out of Nigeria. I would also argue that tarot reading is not completely harmless.

The 419 scams out of Nigeria are not consensual; you do not agree to receive all of that goddamned spam. Moreover, they are lying. A tarot card reader sincerely believes his superstitious nonsense.

[Darth Wong]

verilon, I don't know if you even care, but pick up a copy of "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan.

Also, http://www.skepdic.com/tarot.html

Yeah, honestly, tarot cards are just another way to part fools with their money. It carries absolutely no religious overtones, except those tacked on very recently by New Agers, as clairvoyants, fortune-tellers, and other such people hail from all religions. (There are notable examples of fortune tellers who were practicing Christians and did fortunes for the Popes: Nostradamus is a fine example of such.)

If you believe tarot cards can tell the future, that is a religious belief. It's certainly not based on any objective evidence or logic ...

[Darth Wong]

On New Orleans "cleaning up" by throwing out psychics and opening up for artists: I think keeping a mix of vendors, whether they're hawking bad landscapes or horoscopes, would increase the "flavor" and character of the setting. If somebody wants to shell out money for a sad clown painting or their future, so what? They're all just sidewalk vendors to me. Let 'em do their thing. Venice Beach would be a pretty goddamned boring place without the fringe element, and I suspect the same is true here.

Personally, I like downtown sidewalk vendors. But if the intent is to take only a very specific area and remove anyone but artists, it's not religious discrimination (I assume they would also remove hot dog vendors, people hawking cheap knock-off jewellery, and other eyesores). If it extends beyond that, then it is.

Mind you, if it's just the govermnent demanding that they get a license, then that's perfectly reasonable. You need a license to offer any kind of service for money in the business world.

[Hotfoot]

Mike, I've moved my response to the thread I made in SLAM, to avoid a total thread hijacking here.

[Stormbringer]

It's not that different than Guilanni getting rid of the squeegie men. It's all about getting rid of obnoxious panhandlers and trying to turn the area into something more tourist friendly.

It sucks about your friend, Einhander but he should go out and get a real job instead of tarot card panhandling.

[Darth Wong]

It's not that different than Guilanni getting rid of the squeegie men. It's all about getting rid of obnoxious panhandlers and trying to turn the area into something more tourist friendly.

Squeegee men and panhandlers accost you. You do not go out of your way to ask a squeegee man or panhandler to talk to you.

It sucks about your friend, Einhander but he should go out and get a real job instead of tarot card panhandling.

Let's be fair; I don't believe in tarot cards either, but it's not panhandling. However, if the authorities demand that he get a license to practice business on the street, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. The hot dog guy needs such a license, and it would only be fair to ask the same of a tarot card guy.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Guys, I'm sorry about that warning I put on my posts. That's not my place to do that. Please accept my apology.

I have no problem with anyone asking tarot guys getting a license to give a service to customers, I'm against blanket-bans that are probably religiously motivated in the first place.

[MKSheppard]

And what's a church service, then? Do you know how many churches expect you to "tithe", ie- give a fixed percentage of your income to them in exchange for their religious services? Why aren't we banning this?

I don't know where you get your information from, but around here,
we don't do that.

[Stormbringer]

Squeegee men and panhandlers accost you. You do not go out of your way to ask a squeegee man or panhandler to talk to you.

Some guys do accost you. I can't speak for Einhander's friend but some of them are damn obnoxious. They're every bit as pushy as the sqeeegeee men or panhandlers.

Let's be fair; I don't believe in tarot cards either, but it's not panhandling. However, if the authorities demand that he get a license to practice business on the street, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. The hot dog guy needs such a license, and it would only be fair to ask the same of a tarot card guy.

If they want to require them to get a lincense instead then it's fine. The problem is anyone is allowed to now and they get people that are no better than squeegee men and panhandlers. Obnoxius guys hounding you aren't really a tourist attraction.

[Kelly Antilles]

And what's a church service, then? Do you know how many churches expect you to "tithe", ie- give a fixed percentage of your income to them in exchange for their religious services? Why aren't we banning this?

I don't know where you get your information from, but around here,
we don't do that.

You know that plate they pass through the pews every Sunday? That is a tithe.

[Crayz9000]

You know that plate they pass through the pews every Sunday? That is a tithe.

(Of course, you aren't obligated to put anything in--just encouraged.

[Darth Wong]

You know that plate they pass through the pews every Sunday? That is a tithe.

(Of course, you aren't obligated to put anything in--just encouraged.

It's quite clever, really; the plate is passed around in a very public manner, and everyone looks at you when you get it. If they had a discrete collection plate in the lobby, I'm sure they would get much less money.