Greenwich Mean Time Is Not Determined By The Biggest Clock

This is amazing.

For more than a century, a point on the top of a hill in south-east London has been recognised as the centre of world time and the official starting point of each new day.

But now the supremacy of Greenwich Mean Time is being challenged by a gargantuan new clock being built in Mecca, by which the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims could soon be setting their watches.

Due to start ticking on Thursday as the faithful begin fasting during the month of Ramadan, the timepiece sits atop the Royal Mecca Clock Tower which dominates Islam’s holiest city.

It is at the heart of a vast complex funded by the Saudi government that will also house hotels, shopping malls and conference halls.

Bearing a striking resemblance to both St Stephen’s Tower, which houses the bell of Big Ben, and the Empire State Building, the Saudi upstart aims to outdo its revered British rival in every way.

The clock’s four faces are 151ft in diameter and will be illuminated by 2million LED lights along with huge Arabic script reading: “In the name of Allah”. The clock will run on Arabia Standard Time which is three hours ahead of GMT.

When a glittering spire is added, topped with a crescent to symbolise Islam, the edifice will stand at nearly 2,000 ft, making it the world's second tallest building.

The clock of Big Ben, by comparison, is just 23ft in diameter, while its tower stands at a mere 316ft.

Residents of Mecca will also be reminded that it is time to pray when 21,000 green and white lights, visible at a distance of 18 miles, flash five times a day.

OK, thus far, who cares - they built a big clock to rival other big clocks in yet another silly exercise that amounts to an international game of 'my dick is bigger than yours.' The clock sounds impressive, but also like a bit of a rip off, but really who cares. Wacky people do wacky things. This is where it starts getting good.

But Islamic scholars hope the clock’s influence will stretch far further than the sands of Saudi Arabia, as part of a plan for Mecca to eclipse the Greenwich Observatory as the “true centre of the earth”.

Because, as I'm sure you all know, we determine that by the biggest clock now. Wait, what?

For the past 125 years, the international community has accepted that the start of each day should be measured from the prime meridian, representing 0 degrees longitude, which passes through the Greenwich Observatory.

A standard time by which other clocks were set was needed to organise global travel and communications, but in the Islamic world the idea that it should be centred on a part of London is seen as a colonial anachronism.

As Mohammed al-Arkubi, manager of one of the hotels in the complex, put it: "Putting Mecca time in the face of Greenwich Mean Time. This is the goal."

That sounds incredibly petty and stupid to me. GMT was established simply as a means of standardization around the world. Who cares what area 'gets' to have that time? For 125 years it's been London, for reasons other than it's London, so I don't get the point of trying to change it now. Well, I get the point, but it seems like an entirely petty endeavor and frankly, a huge waste of time and resources. Is there ANY reason we ought to change GMT to the middle east beyond the fact that some guys somewhere want it changed?

According to Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian cleric known around the Muslim world for his popular television show "Sharia and Life", Mecca has a greater claim to being the prime meridian because it is "in perfect alignment with the magnetic north."

This claim that the holy city is a "zero magnetism zone" has won support from some Arab scientists like Abdel-Baset al-Sayyed of the Egyptian National Research Centre who says that there is no magnetic force in Mecca.

"That's why if someone travels to Mecca or lives there, he lives longer, is healthier and is less affected by the earth's gravity," he said. "You get charged with energy."

Western scientists have challenged such assertions, noting that the Magnetic North Pole is in actual fact on a line of longitude that passes through Canada, the United States, Mexico and Antarctica.

Haha, so they want GMT to be changed because it's in line with the magnetic north pole, except it really isn't. Also, people in Mecca live longer, healthier lives and are less affected by gravity? Wow. I'll need to see some data, guys, somehow I feel compelled to question your assertions here.

Maybe they've also built a bigger copy of some insidious Western laboratories and therefore feel their "science" ought to be more credible by default as well.

Sit Back and Watch Them Eat Each Other

This hardly seems fair, though it in no way surprises me. Christians in particular often express feelings of discrimination or persecution, which in some cases is valid, but it seems that often they're discriminating and persecuting one another.

Differences in religious belief and biblical interpretation have led a Corona Christian school to dismiss four teachers and seven other employees.

The move spurred some parents to pull their children out of the school and others to defend what they see as a move to protect their kids from spiritually harmful influences.

Most of the fired employees belong to the Catholic Church, which has key teachings that conflict with those of the conservative evangelical Crossroads Christian Schools and the adjacent Crossroads Christian Church, which with about 8,000 members is among the Inland area's largest churches.

Last year, the preschool-through-ninth-grade school -- the school is adding 10th grade this year -- came under the umbrella of the church after about a decade of autonomy. That spurred a closer evaluation of the religious beliefs of the now-dismissed employees, who had been with the school for as long as 22 years, said Beth Frobisher, superintendent of the 583-pupil school.

"How can the school be a ministry of the church if what is spoken and taught into the hearts of the children isn't consistent with what is taught in the church?" Frobisher asked.

It's clear that this guy is alluding to some issue where the kids are being taught things that go against the beliefs of the church. So, how many complaints to that end have their been?

Long [executive pastor of the church] said he had never heard of any complaints of Catholic or other non-evangelical beliefs being introduced into the classroom.

Well, if that's true, it begs the question - is this apparent religious discrimination legal? It would seem that isn't too clear either.

Experts disagree on whether the dismissals were legal. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Irvine's law school, said federal and state law prohibit religious-belief requirements in schools, even if, as at Crossroads, religion is infused throughout the entire curricula. The only exception is religious-education classes.

"They can specify they have to teach the subjects in a certain way," Chemerinsky said. "But they cannot discriminate in employment based upon religion. But Thomas Cathey, director of legal/legislative issues for the Colorado-based Association of Christian Schools International, to which Crossroads belongs, said the school falls under a religious-institution exemption in federal law and has a right to hire and fire employees whose religious beliefs aren't in sync with its own.

So I guess my next question is, why did they hire Catholics in the first place? Why is this coming up now?

When hired, employees signed a "statement of faith" that summarizes Crossroads' beliefs. Several fired employees said they saw nothing in the statement they disagreed with. But Crossroads believes that the employees "weren't living out" the statement, Booher said.

The church opened the school in 1979. About 10 years ago, the school became independent of the church. The school did not strictly enforce its rules on employees' religious beliefs and practices until the 2009-10 academic year, after it became a ministry of the church.

"We decided, 'Let's get back to what we always said we believed in,' " said the Rev. Mike Long, executive pastor of the church.

Admittedly, religious groups opting to go backwards seems to be a pretty typical theme.

Booher and Long arrived at Crossroads in 2007. Frobisher became superintendent a year later.

In summer 2009, 12 of about 140 employees were deemed to not be aligned with the statement of faith and Crossroads' teachings. Four were teachers. Others held positions such as teacher aide, after-school playground supervisor and accounting employee.

Employees were first told in August 2009 of the school's closer relationship with the church and a requirement that they attend a "Bible-believing church."

Some employees were unclear about what the new rules meant, and early this year, church and school leaders held meetings that discussed the requirements more explicitly, including a definition of a Bible-believing church as a born-again, Protestant evangelical church. Most employees were allowed to finish the school year.

Former kindergarten teacher Sue Fitzgerald, 55, said she suspected in August that church and school officials were planning to dismiss her and other Catholic employees but she hoped they would eventually change their minds because of her 14 years there. She realized at a January meeting that she would lose her job, she said.

Fitzgerald and other fired employees say they're having a tough time finding new positions. Fitzgerald said she had planned to work at Crossroads until she retired.

"I just loved the sense of family, or what I thought was family," she said.

But Ms. Fitzgerald, it looks like you might be able to get your job back yet -

One teacher who had been raised Lutheran was rehired for the new school year after she underwent a full-immersion baptism, Long said. She now attends Crossroads.

The message this school is sending seems clear - we no longer want diversity of thought. We want our brand of Christan. Considering their brand of Christan seems to be the kind that can rationalize firing a 14 years employed, 55 year old employee at a time when unemployment in incredibly high, I'd be interested to see exactly what Christ these people have decided to worship and emulate.

I'd love to ask the people who run this school how they feel being a minority religious belief. I guarantee, in that case, suddenly those Catholics would be perfectly Christian enough to count.

AaA Episode 9 - Atheism and Star Trek

Woooo! We've already received criticism on this one for being too silly. But, then again, who hasn't been accused as an atheist or free thinker of being too serious? You'll never win them all...

Also, this is my directorial debut, so be kind - I had no clue what I was doing!



If you like the show and do the whole facebook thing, please feel free to "like" us there as well - we appreciate your support!

Billy Graham is a Total Dick

I know, I know - obvious statement is obvious - but sometimes I forget just how big a dick he is, and then he reminds me.

Atheist may be sunny on outside, but feel empty inside

That's a promising title.

The kindest, most thoughtful person I know says she’s an atheist and doesn’t even believe in God. I always thought we needed to believe in God before we’d behave like she does, but I guess this isn’t necessarily true, is it? — S.K.

It makes me sad that someone might actually earnestly ask this question, but I could see it happening. It seems to me this person came to the logical conclusion - the non religious can be just as kind and thoughtful as the religious.

I’m convinced that when a person comes to Jesus Christ and commits his or her life to Him, they will become a better person than they ever were before. If your atheist friend comes to Christ some day, she’ll be an even better person than she is now.

Why is she such a kind and thoughtful person? I don’t know the reason; perhaps she simply has a sunny personality (as some people do), or perhaps her parents taught her to be kind and considerate when she was growing up. But I do know this: She’s not this way because she’s an atheist. In fact, she’s this way in spite of her atheism — because a true atheist has no real reason to believe in right and wrong, or to behave sacrificially toward others.

Oh Billy... I honestly don't see how this guy feels he's in a position to judge others about anything ethical when he makes a living squeezing money out of rubes and the elderly in the name of Jesus. To me, having the qualities and morals that are required to be a televangelist seems far worse than the singular lack of belief in god that makes one an atheist.

Pray for her, that God will open her eyes — not only to His existence, but also to His love for her. And ask God to help you be a witness to her of Christ’s love and transforming power. On the outside, she may seem self-sufficient and indifferent toward God — but inside she may be spiritually empty and searching for inner peace.

Send your queries to “My Answer,” c/o Billy Graham...

Or, S.K., you could not listen to the con artist whose job it is to get you to give him money in a religious fit of stupidity, and instead talk to your atheist friend more. See what makes her such a good person. After all, it seems like she's a good person for no reason besides that's who she is. Billy here is only as good as he can play on TV.

AaA Ep. 8 - Childhood Indoctrination

Enjoy!

On Symbolism - Why I'm OK With The A

One of the blogs I read regularly is Atheist Revolution. Vjack updates his blog consistently and has a clear way of writing which focuses on news and issues that are relevant to me most of the time. One of his recent posts about the atheist appropriation of the scarlet A as a symbol for atheism, the use of the same symbol by a movie coming out and the possible impact this might have on the atheist community got me thinking about symbols in general, especially my own aversion to them.

If you are unfamiliar with the origins of the scarlet A and atheism, I'll give a quick run down. The scarlet A was a symbol used in Nathaniel Hawthorn's book The Scarlet Letter. The heroine of the story, Hester Prynne, has a child out of wedlock and so she's forced to wear a big red A on her clothing so that others may easily identify her as a evil evil adulteress. Hester is often regarded as a tragic figure who was mistreated and judged because of choices she made in her life which really only affected herself and were made, as you find out in the book, because of what amounts to entirely understandable circumstances.

The atheist use of the A really gained popularity when it as referenced by Dawkins as a way to participate in the OUT campaign:

Stand OUT and organize activities and events in your local area. Join an existing local neighbourhood atheist organization, or start one. Put a bumper sticker on your car. Wear a T-shirt. Wear Josh's red A if you like it as much as I do, otherwise design your own or find one on a website such as http://www.cafepress.com/buy/atheist; or wear no shirt at all, but please don't carp at the very idea of standing up to be counted with other atheists. I admit, I sympathize with those sceptics on this site who fear that we are engendering a quasi-religious conformity of our own. Whether we like it or not, I'm afraid we have to swallow this small amount of pride if we are to have an influence on the real world, otherwise we'll never overcome the 'herding cats' problem.

And it makes sense as a symbol atheists would adopt. Not only is it an obvious choice in a very basic, Sesame Street kind of way (A is for Atheist - muppet dance!) but I think a lot of atheists feel sympathetic to Hester's plight of being judged and largely rejected by the Puritanical society in which she lives because of circumstances that shouldn't matter. I think it's great that atheists have an easily identified symbol that allows them to recognize one another easily, especially in places like the south where being an atheist can seriously negatively affect a person's standard of living.

Still. I don't like it.

I think it may have to do with my own personal history of growing up without religion in a family that was very anti-mindless American pride. My dad was a PTSD afflicted Vietnam vet with, shockingly, issues with the government and people who support the government unquestioningly. I was raised to believe that no symbol is sacred and to question anyone who rallies behind symbols as if they are unassailable. I was raised to believe the ultimate expression of American freedom was to burn the flag because the flag is just a thing and what's really important is what the symbol represents, not the symbol itself.

However, I don't think many atheists are doing this with the symbols floating around out there that are associated with atheism. Maybe it's because the atheist movement hasn't gained enough momentum or maybe it's because atheists tend not to be as indignantly protective of symbolism as religious people or even some of the more intense patriots. As long as atheists continue in this vein, I'll continue to support the use of the scarlet A, the asterisk, the atomic symbol, or whatever people are sporting to make their godlessness known.

So to re-cap: I get why people like it. I'm in no way against it. I'm just not into it.

The Danger of Being an Atheist

I'm obviously an atheist, but I had no idea what a difficult line that is to toe. Luckily my internet pal Philosoraptor turned me on to this alarming list of facts* about me and my fellow godless brethren.

Don't be mad at the atheists. They lead a very difficult life because of their beliefs. Anyone out there who considers themselves an atheist should educate themselves to the facts. I was very sad to read this and feel that we should all do our best to help the atheists:


• Atheists have a significantly higher rate of depression than non-atheist groups.

• Teenagers who identify themselves as atheist have a higher rate of suicide than those who don't.

• The WHO says venereal diseases spread faster among atheistic populations, particularly syphilis, hepatitis and HIV.

• On average, atheists have a 60% higher chance of dying from cancer and a 54% slower recovery rate.

• Married couples where one or both spouses is an atheist experience a higher rate of divorce than those who don't.

• Atheists account for an unusually high percentage of the total number of people who died of AIDS since the 1980s.

• Atheist world leaders are responsible for more total deaths as a result of politically motivated murders and genocides than the deaths of all religious wars combined since the beginning of recorded history.

• On average, atheists earn 35% less in household income per year than non-atheists.

• Atheists have a higher college drop-out rate than non-atheists and score an average 2.03 GPA compared to 3.13 for non-atheists.

• The rate of birth defects is 14% higher among couples who identify themselves as atheists.

• While Catholics top the charts for number of abortions per year, atheists top the charts for the number of miscarriages and infanticide cases, where the mother murdered her baby after it was born.

• Atheists account for a shocking 82% of the number of serial killers in the United States and an even more shocking 90% of those arrested for human cannibalism.

• Of all the cases of treason tried in the United States, 57.6% of those convicted were self-proclaimed atheists... more than Christians, Muslims, Jews, Agnostics and all other religions combined.

• The life expectancy for atheists is 12.03 years shorter than non-atheists.

• Atheists account for a larger percentage of military dishonorable discharges than non-atheists.

• A surprising documentary on PBS public television interviewed people after they saw an actor stage a collapse in the street to try and classify who was most likely to help and who was most likely to ignore the person. They repeated the scenario several hundred times over a period of three years to get a sampling based on age, gender, race, religious affiliation and economic status. In every instance, atheists ranked at the bottom of the list in terms of their willingness to help, unless the victim appeared to be an attractive white woman. They ranked lower than any other group when the victim appeared to be homeless or affiliated with a religion, such as a Hasidic Jew or a priest/nun. The documentary's producers were stunned to find that Christians, Jews and Muslims, in spite of their religious differences, were more inclined to help each other than atheists were inclined to help anybody.

Personally, when I see someone collapse in the street, I pee on them and steal their shit. But damn it, I pee on everyone equally.

*In this case, we're using this definition of fact.

Another Stupid Lawsuit

This news story is ridiculous, but it's also a great example of the expectation some religious people have in regard to their beliefs and world around them. This guy should have never taken a job in public transit if he has religious beliefs that prohibit him from performing his duties.

A Texas bus driver has filed a lawsuit against his former employer, claiming he was fired for his religious beliefs after refusing to transport a client to a Planned Parenthood office, court documents showed Wednesday.

Edwin A. Graning worked for the Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS) near Austin, Texas, for less than a year before he was let go in January. At the time, he told his supervisor that, "in good conscience, he could not take someone to have an abortion," according to the lawsuit. Graning is an ordained Christian minister.

(On a side note, anyone can become an ordained minister. Online. For free.)

Planned Parenthood, a health care provider that offers a range of medical services to women, including those related to abortion, often draws the ire of anti-abortion groups in the United States, where the procedure is legal but fiercely controversial.

So it would seem he had no idea why she was going to Planned Parenthood. It could have been for an abortion, but it could have also been for a medical check-up, a counseling appointment, to pick up medication, to take a pregnancy test, or to utilize any number of other services. Planned Parenthood is a pretty busy place. It is not, as some might have you believe, an abortion factory.

He is seeking reinstatement, back pay, and compensatory damages for pain, suffering and emotional distress.

"It's only because he voiced his religions beliefs that he was canned," Edward White III, Graning's lawyer, told CNN. "Employers have a legal responsibility to at least attempt to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs. ... CARTS clearly violated Mr. Graning's religious freedom."

White, who works for a public interest law group founded by evangelical Christian leader Pat Robertson, said CARTS sent a second driver to collect the client and took her and a friend to the Planned Parenthood office.

Uhhhh, no, it is not only because he voiced his religious beliefs - that's just kind of annoying and better kept to yourself. Dude got fired because he refused to do his job. Did no one point this out to you? Oh, wait -

"While others may wish to make more of it, to CARTS this is just about our expectation that employees perform the duties they are hired for," David Marsh, general manager of CARTS, said in an e-mail message to CNN.

In addition to rides along fixed routes, CARTS offers some door-to-door service within its rural coverage area.

The lawsuit, in the U.S. District Court for western Texas, Austin Division, was filed on July 14.

I hope this guy doesn't win. I don't see how he could, really. When I worked in a deli, I was a vegetarian, but that didn't mean I had the right to refuse to slice lunch meat. The only way I would have had the right to refuse to do that aspect of my job is if I had told my boss that I was unable to perform that aspect of my position because of those beliefs and was hired anyway with the understanding that I wasn't going to cut any meat. So unless the guy told CARTS that he wasn't able to drive people in some instances because of his religious beliefs, he would have been hired under the pretense that he was able to perform his work duties regardless of what his religious views are.

Even ignoring that, it seems to me the guy didn't actually have any grounds to refuse to do his job even if his religious opposition to abortion was something that legally had to be worked around because he had no way of knowing that's what she was going to Planned Parenthood to have done.

Ask an Atheist Episode 7 - Conspiracy Theories

Here it is, episode 7 of Ask An Atheist!

From the official blog: Case and Mike discuss the nature of conspiracy theories, and why most of them fail the test of evidence.

If you don't check it out, you're just playing into "The Man's" plot to destroy something you care about!!

Why Little Things Matter

I was going to write about this yesterday because It's semi-local and I found it interesting, but then I got distracted by epic personal lameness, so here it is today:

PORT ANGELES -- Tim Davis, a candidate for Clallam County District Court 1 judge, stood in front of a voters-forum audience of 100 people this week and related one of those stories about an electoral opponent that makes the ears perk up.

Davis, a candidate with Pam Lindquist in the Aug. 17 primary, said incumbent Judge Rick Porter had required a potential juror in a DUI trial to pledging to truthfully answer questions about her qualifications to be a juror, "so help you God."

The judge uses the term, asking if the juror so swears, and the juror is expected to answer, "I do."

When the woman objected -- after she was impaneled -- to saying "I do" to the phrase "so help you God," Porter told her to sit in the jury box "all by herself," Davis told the audience, saying Porter's actions were unnecessary and suggesting that Porter humiliated the woman.

"That never, ever happened," Porter responded at the forum Tuesday in Port Angeles.

"This issue, as far as I know, never came up."

Gail Smith of Sequim said Thursday that's exactly that happened to her Feb. 17 as a juror during a one-day driving-under-the-influence trial that Porter presided over.

Only an option

She said she was required to take the oath twice before the trial began despite the state Administrative Office of the Courts and the state Supreme Court saying that the phrase is only an option and not required.

"I had to say it to perform my civic duty," she said.

"I felt consternation, I felt embarrassment, and I felt discriminated against. I was not given the option that the state Supreme Court has given people."

Smith said she continued fuming about having to take the oath after the trial began.

During a break, she wrote a note in the jury room expressing her anger and gave it to the bailiff to give it to Porter, she said.

In the note, she compared the oath to taking an oath that invokes the name of Santa Claus, Smith said.

Her husband was in the courtroom with other trial participants and saw Porter laugh when he read it out loud, Smith said.

Her husband said Porter told the defense attorney and prosecutor that he needed to question Smith to determine if her anger would make her biased, Smith said.

When the jurors returned from lunch, Smith was called out of the jury room by the bailiff.

"I was required to sit alone in front of the defense lawyers, the prosecutor, a deputy sheriff witness, the general public and the defendant's family member while the judge explained to me that the state Supreme Court mandates that he follow, verbatim, certain protocol including the so-help-me-God oath," Smith said.

"He asked if my being upset at having to swear to the oath would taint my ability to be a juror, and I answered no."

She said that part of the oath is in brackets in court rules set out by the state Administrative Office of the Courts, meaning it is optional.

Smith described herself as a secularist, or one who, according to www.mirrian-webster.com ascribes to secularism, or "indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations."

"I'm a secularist, not an atheist," Smith said. "I challenge church dogma of any sort. It didn't make me any less impartial."

Porter agrees about option

Porter on Thursday agreed that the "so help you God" part of the oath is optional, noting, too, the brackets.

Porter said he vaguely recalled an incident involving a woman who objected to the oath.

He asked if the incident happened two or three years ago, saying it's been a long year.

He said no one is required to say "so help you God."

"I recall there was a lady who told [District Court Administrator Keith Wills] that she was an atheist and didn't want to do that," Porter said of the oath.

"I explained that I was sorry, and it was part of the script. I don't know if it was during the trial or after the trial, I honestly don't know.

"I recall vaguely having a conversation and saying I don't mean to offend you and that's the way the script reads."

Porter said this is the only time anyone has raised an issue with the oath in District Court.

"I'm just amazed that this is that big an issue," Porter said.

As to claiming at the forum, "that never happened," Porter said Thursday he was referring to Davis' characterization of the incident.

"He said I was rude and belittling to her, and that never happened."

It seems to me that this Judge singled this woman out, was kind of a prick to her, she stood up for herself, he was even more of a prick to her, and now he's trying to distance himself from the whole thing because it's nearly election time.

The thing that really gets me about these kinds of stories are the comments. A few of the uglier ones:

Posted by Allen Frank

Criminals hate Judge Porter.
Trial Attorney's hate Judge Porter.
Atheists hate Judge Porter.

Sounds like my kind of Judge.
God Bless you Judge Porter!

Posted by Allen Frank

The latest tactic of the Atheist Progressives is to deny being Atheist; calling themselves "secularists". Sounds better I guess.

"During a break, she wrote a note in the jury room expressing her anger and gave it to the bailiff to give it to Porter, she said.

In the note, she compared the oath to taking an oath that invokes the name of Santa Claus, Smith said."

Equating God with Santa Claus??
Sounds like an Atheist to me!!

Posted by Allen Frank

I never said it wasn't ok for folks to be Atheists.
It's just hysterical that people like Ms. Smith would go out of her way to claim to be a Secularist and not an Atheist....then equate God with Santa. That's the point. We have free will to make choices and are, THANK GOD, free to exercise our Rights. Even make fun of God like Ms Smith did.
I'm pointing out her clear case of HYPOCRISY!
Seems like Ms Smith enjoys being offended so she can lash out her dogma.

Most of the negative comments on the story were posted by this guy, Allen Frank. From what he's written, he's most likely a random harmless troll.

Posted by Lauren Pratt

If someone doesn't take an oath . . . how do u determine if THEY r telling the truth? R there consequences for people who do not take the oath and later are determined to be unethical or a liar???

This is just an epic fail in regard to reading comprehension. She didn't refuse to take the oath, she refused to say the bits having to do with god, which is legally her right.

Posted by Wynn silence

Porter must be doing something right. Because he's got all the drunks and nutjobs mad at him. Oh yeah and the Devil and his crouwd too.

Davis needs to present what he will do different or better than Porter or drop out of the eletion and quit waisting the peoples time with back stabbing.

And the same Go's for Pam Linquist. Both of them sound like they should be in the school district Judge for a day program.

This is probably the most disappointing comment I read. But nothing new or surprising here either.

Look, if a judge had made someone uncomfortable about saying the god bits of an oath, people would be freaking out about the injustice and abuse of power in the situation. It's hard not to feel a little bitter when a good chunk of comments (granted, a healthy portion of those were from ranty Mr. Frank, but still) are essentially saying - well, she's an atheist so good for him.

This is a little thing and it's very tempting to want to distance oneself from this kind of story to avoid the inevitable label of being whiny or petty, but when you let the little things slide, it paves the way for the bigger issues to have just a little more credence. That's why it's important for people to speak up, even for the little things like a religious display at the capital or the words 'Under God' in our pledge and on our money, or a judge using his position of influence to make you feel singled out or your secularism.

Non-religious people, just like any other kind of people, have a right to equal representation. We don't forfeit that when we make the decision to be open about our godlessness. Unfortunately, being a minority group, we have to remind people of that right fairly often and may even have to fight for that right from time to time. That's the burden of knowing what's right and sticking by it, even when society pressures you to conform to something different.