nocto

weblogs in the us are currently full of stories and discussion about how the “pledge of allegiance” recited by school children across the united states has been ruled unconstitutional because it contains the phrase “one nation under god”.

i’ve always found the visibilty of religion in everyday america a bit disturbing, the recital of the pledge downright creepy and the presence of the words “in god we trust” on the banknotes a little presumptory. it just strikes me as a little odd that i live in a country with an official state religion (the church of england) and yet my exposure to religion on an everyday basis becomes much greater when i step into the us and into a country where the first amendment to the constitution guarantees an american’s right to freedom of religion, which (george bush senior’s take on the subject notwithstanding) includes the right to no religion at all.

something i learnt today is that the words that end the american court oath, familiar to most of the world from films and tv, the stirring but not particularly inclusive “so help me god” can be replaced by “this you do affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury”.

what i wondered was what i could say if i was appearing in an english courtroom. i’m pleased to find that the uk oaths act 1978 caters for all sorts from muslims to rastafarians and from quakers to jews. it puts the emphasis on the fact that the oath must be one that the person swearing it believes constrains them to tell the truth which seems uncommonly sensible for an act of parliament. should i ever appear in court i’m allowed to just give my word, without even wishing pain or penalty on myself:

i do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

this being the web i’d love to point you at my source but i only found the details of the act in google’s cache (for which the “use this url to link or bookmark this page” doesn’t work, i think that’s the first time i’ve ever had a problem with google) for this site which is down and the online repository of acts of the uk parliament only goes back as far as 1988.

being stuck with using a note-unfriendly public transport system at the moment i’d really like to see something like the octopus card here. trying to ensure i have enough of the right coins on hand for metro machines that neither take notes nor credit cards nor give you enough time to pour your 5p collection in is driving me up the wall. cash on a card that removes the pesky obstacle of having enough money but in the wrong format would be great.

[found via rebecca's pocket]

i had a book on mathematics as a child, actually my parents had it but they haven’t missed it yet (ooops, hi dad!), which had an explanation of levers and how given a long enough lever a man (or woman, or even small girl just getting interested in maths and science) could move the earth. the idea of being able to move large objects with minimal force blew my mind at the time.

now i find people are proposing ways of moving the earth for real:

we don’t need raw power to move earth, we just require delicacy of planning and manoeuvring.

the idea is to counteract global warming (and in the really long term also counteract the warming up of the sun) by throwing a large object at the earth and changing its orbit just a little. effectively we’d be playing snooker with planets and an asteroid cue ball.

one consequence of this would be that:

any alien astronomers observing our solar system would know that something odd had occurred, and would realise an intelligent lifeform was responsible.

‘and the same goes for us. when we look at other solar systems, and detect planets around other suns – which we are now beginning to do – we may see that planet-moving has occurred. it will give us our first evidence of the handiwork of extraterrestrial beings.’

my mind is blown once again by that!

[found via powazek]