The Journey team selects stories that got us talking this week.
Doomsday call wrong, religion wrap still going strong
Although David Meade originally claimed the world would end on 23 September, we’re writing this so looks like that prediction didn’t quite work out. Now, according to Time magazine, Meade is saying the 23 September date was merely the day which would “set into motion a series of catastrophic events that will eventually lead to Earth’s demise”.
His prediction was based on Bible verses and codes and thoroughly debunked theories about a rogue planet kept secret by NASA destroying Earth.
Media focus on Lyle ahead by a mile
The Guardian reports that Australian Christian Lobby managing director Lyle Shelton has received more media mentions than the three leading “Yes” campaigners combined during Australia’s same-sex marriage debate and postal survey.
The numbers indicate Shelton has received over 2500 mentions in radio, TV, print and online news over the past two weeks compared to the approximately 2000 mentions of three big “Yes” campaigners during the same period.
A spokesperson for the “Yes” campaign said, “We are the underdog in this campaign and always have been. We are up against a powerful machine, we’ve always known that.”
Church of RoboGod switches on
Business Insider reports on the Way of the Future church whose purpose is “to develop and promote the realisation of a Godhead based on Artificial Intelligence”. The church’s founder, Anthony Levandowski, helped created Google Street View and is seen as one of Silicon Valley’s tech pioneers.
Thou shalt not judge judges?
The Guardian brings news of a push by the National Secular Society to cancel the annual Anglican service at Westminster Abbey which opens the legal year because it “undermines judicial impartiality”. The society argues that the practice “perpetuates the medieval belief that church and state are closely intertwined”.
Attendance at the service is non-compulsory but the society has written to the lord chancellor, David Lidington, stating, “Not only is the judges’ service incompatible with the generally accepted objective of achieving and demonstrating diversity in the judiciary, it also raises serious questions about the perception of neutrality and independence of the judiciary.”