Well the candidates were finally asked straight out how their religion would affect their presidency:

Paul - said that his religious beliefs affect how he treats people and the way he lives

Romney - said the president should carry in his heart what the authors of the Declaration of Independence wrote.

Gingrich - said that anyone who is president faces decisions so enormous that they should go to God and should seek guidance. Also that one of the reasons he is running is there has been a war on religion, particularly on Christianity in this country.

Santorum - said the Constitution is there to do one thing; protect God-given rights and that no other country in the world has "God-given" rights, not government-given rights.

Very frightening when three people with the potential to be the leader of the United States will use a mythological figure to guide their decisions.

Question: Since when is a streak of light on a pane of glass a news story?

The depressing answer is as of lunchtime on the 28th of January. Specially featured on the BBC News homepage (and currently their most-viewed video 'news' item) is a story of undiluted hokum. It's an all too familiar concoction involving a chance pattern of light on a window which just happens to bear the vaguest resemblance to a human form. Must be a ghost then eh! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16770489

It's bad enough having to put up with the avalanche of idiotic and credulous television shows (Most Haunted, Ghost Hunters, etc, etc) that somehow manage to bypass Ofcom broadcasting regulations on factual accuracy by playing the 'entertainment' card. But what about when reputable and supposedly trustworthy news gathering organisations begin to churn out such material? Don't they have a moral duty not to behave in such a way that actively promotes - however slightly - blatantly unscientific, irrational non-explanations?

It's such an irritating 'news' report it would take too long to describe all that is wrong with it. The part that sticks out as most irresponsible is the injunction to viewers to "judge for yourself", with its implicit meaning that there is no right or wrong answer and that proclaiming 'Yes, it's a ghost' is somehow equally valid as accepting the only real, true valid explanation: a chance streak of light (and not a particularly good one at that!)

Or am I overreacting? Are such stories as this just a "bit of harmless fun" as the BBC news editor concerned would doubtless say? Do stories like this actively contribute towards the strong culture of resistance that rationalism and science continue to encounter?

I have started a petition to repeal Pakistan's Blasphemy law. The text is:

What one believes is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of struggle with one's personal conscience and the force of facts entering in through windows onto reality. Society cannot progress and the human being cannot thrive unless it is possible to discuss ideas and one's perceptions freely. Pakistan's blasphemy law is thus an insult to the founder of Pakistan, who wanted a secular Pakistan. It is an insult to God (if such a being exists). It is an insult to every human being that ever looked up at the stars and wondered what they were.