The folks over at Unreasonable Faith have a wonderful illustration about the arbitrariness of "natural vs. artificial.

It's very spiritually and socially in right now to espouse the greatness of the natural world and the expense of the man-made one. But why are man-made things suddenly "unnatural"? Are they not ultimately made from natural substances? Are they not shaped by natural intellect?

Sure, humanity has its issues. But decrying everything man-made is throwing the baby out with the bath water. And this is pertinent regardless of whether you're a monotheist, polytheist or atheist.

The Internet has profoundly shaped many aspects of our lives, and religion certainly isn't exempt from them.

Like most things, the influences are both positive and negative. The internet gives people access to much more information thatn previously. Communities are becoming more religiously diverse because members are learning about so many new ideas often without even meeting a believer face-to-face.

The Internet also offers a sort of support group, where isolated individuals can network with like minded people.

However, the Internet also offers anonymity, which allows people to be much more outspoken about their faith than they often would be face-to-face or in a published format where real names have to be attached. It's easier to be aggressive and generally obnoxious, which might even encourage people to bring that sort of behavior into face-to-face conversations.

Finally, the Internet is the world's largest water cooler. While lots of information can be gleaned from the internet, not nearly all of it accurate. Conspiracy theories, formerly toted largely by guys in basements wearing tinfoil hats, are becoming practically mainstream in many cases.

According to Religious Clause, a federal court in California as ruled that the white supremacist Creativity Movement is not a religion.

The US government and judicial system has historically been very hands off in determining the meaning of "religion." After all, you can't easily claim equality for all while then only applying those rules to certain groups.

And yet, all things are NOT religions. Republicanism is not a religion. My dislike of turnips is not a religion.

So how do you define a religion? Many hold that a religion needs to involve a supernatural power like a god, yet Buddhism (among others) requires no specific entity and it commonly labeled a religion.

In this case, I think the truly defining comment made by the court was that "their sole purpose is to support what the Court already has found to be a secular belief system." That is to say, it's sole purpose is to promote white-supremacy. The term sole purpose is important here. A religion can still certainly teach white -supremacy as part of its teachings. But when white-supremacy is the only defining teach of the group, that's not religion. That's secular ideology.

'Tis the Season to decorate lawns and buildings with symbols of faith and the holidays, and to debate what is and is not appropriately keeping church and state separate.

Now is the time to argue whether calling a Christmas tree a "holiday tree" somehow changes the symbolism, and what the heck that symbolism is supposed to be.

Now is the time for certain open-minded groups to open up areas to decorations from all groups...until someone pushes the envelope as to what all that might really include. And then someone else will probably drive a truck through it, taking personal offense at someone else's expression of belief.

And people wonder why I've never been a big fan of the holidays!