Rael, leader and prophet of the Raelian movement, issued a statement on Thursday in response to a BBC report entitled "Happy Marriage Cuts Stokes," which covered a study concluding that men in unhappy marriages were 64% more likely to have a stroke.

That really shouldn't come as too much of a shock. Stress is bad for our health. It raises blood pressure and affects other factors connected with strokes and other health problems. Unhealthy marriages certainly are a significant source of stress.

Rael objected to the "political correctness" of the conclusion, and retorted with his own conclusion that "divorce can save your life."

I think he's missing the forest for the trees here, unable to accept that both conclusions can be equally true. Remaining in a marriage that has already failed in all but legality will be incredibly stressful, in which case his statement on divorce is sound. But that doesn't exclude that fact that people can also be happily monogamous. The happily married man is not a mythological creature.

I certainly value his contributions to discussions on what constitutes a healthy relationship, but that doesn't mean that his viewpoint (here supporting polyamory) is the only valid one out there.

Most religious and magical symbols have been in use for a long time, so much so that a lot of people feel that appropriate symbols need to have some sort of historical validity to them.

However, the fact is this is the 21st century, and there are concepts and situations common to us that were largely or entirely unknown in ancient times.

Recently, a question was asked in the forum about historical symbols for sterility. I confessed I was not aware of any, in large part because sterility was generally something people wanted to avoid rather than attract.

I suppose one answer would be to use a fertility symbol and then deface it some way, whether by drawing an X over it or outright destroying the symbol. But a symbol specifically referencing sterility escapes me.

There are debates circulating among Unitarian Universalists about rewording one of their Seven Principles:

Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

There has been a suggestion that the word respect be replaced with reverence in order to better emphasize the responsibility each human has toward our environment.

The UUs are a very diverse group, embracing both the traditionally religious and the largely secular. Reverence, while certain an appropriate word for some UU members, has fairly overt religious connotations that seems contrary to the UU's general outlooks of inclusiveness.

And if this sounds like a lot of hubbub over nothing, I'd like to remind you of the continuing controversy over what the heck we're supposed to be calling Pluto. A couple years ago it was "demoted" from planet to dwarf planet, and the latter term was only decided upon after consideration of multiple alternative terms such as Kuiper Belt object. In addition, Pluto was also classified as a plutoid, denoting dwarf planets in the Kuiper Belt. It was hoped that naming a whole classification after Pluto might mollify the Pluto-supporters, some of whom organized demonstrations.

Reality hasn't changed, Pluto is the same small, round ball of ice and rock that it has been for millions of years. All that has changed is the words describing it. Words matter. Perceptions matter. What looks like a small change to one person can represent a major shift to another. Language is a powerful thing.

This week, a shop teacher in Iowa became the center of controversy after banning a student from building a Wiccan altar. His original explanation what that he didn't allow the expression of religion in general in his class, and that he had previously banned students from building Christian crosses.

Under that rationale, I would wholeheartedly support him. Personally, I would have both students do their own religious projects, but as long as his policies are applied across the board, I certainly have no objection.

But then he couldn't keep his mouth shut and started going off about how he didn't approve of "witchcraft" in his class. (Not that Wicca = witchcraft, but that's another argument.) And when the school made him aware of its policy to allow students personal expressions of faith, he started protesting that as a Christian he shouldn't have to put up with beliefs and practices that go against his own beliefs.

"Personally, I think it's offensive to worship rocks and trees. [Note: Wiccans don't worship rocks and trees, either, but that's yet another argument.] I am just trying to be moral. I don't know how we can profess to be Christians and let this go on." (Teacher Dan Halferty)

It's not a Christian issue. It's a school issue and a constitutional issue. Teachers have to deal with a wide variety of people. If a person is unable to do this for whatever reason, it is his responsibility to find a more appropriate profession. It is not the responsibility of everyone else to cater to him.

In response, almost 70 students signed a petition stating they "didn't want witchcraft practiced at the school." Am I being overly hopeful that the school might use this as a teaching experience rather than just ignoring it? Clearly students are upset, and many are probably upset over bad information. Wicca is not witchcraft. Modern witchcraft isn't the same as historical concepts of witchcraft, and this student never asked to practice anything in school: he merely wished to build an altar as his shop project.