CNN reports about a growing number of cyber-churches, where services are broadcast and parishioners view it and even take part in it from the comfort of their homes.

Some insist that things will be lost, that one cannot simply "grab grape juice and a cracker from the fridge and watch a computer screen, thinking they are truly participating in a gathering of the faithful."

Why not? While many might not find meaning in such a scenario, they can attend traditional services. But if it is meaningful to someone, who is anyone to argue?

People gripe about lowering attendances at traditional services and people pulling away from faith, oftentimes because they feel they do not have time. The world is changing. Why should faith be expected to stay stagnant? This is how we evolve intellectually: we try new ideas and see if they work, and if they better someone's life, if it keeps someone closer to God than they would otherwise be, why complain?

In the wake of Ft. Hood shootings, conservative preacher Pat Robertson has stated, "Islam is a violent -- I was going to say religion, but it's not a religion. It's a political system. It's a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination."

It's a powerful statement, but the power isn't in the accusation it makes. Rather, the power is in the attempt of redefining Islam as not a religion. Religions have particular rights in Western countries. Talk of not calling Islam a religion is tantamount to suggesting those rights are not deserved by Muslims.

And the suggestion on a logical level is so absurd that Robertson has to use the smoke and mirrors of fear to distract readers from what he's actually said. Regardless of what else Islam may or may not be, what is may or may not espouse, it is without a doubt a religion. It has belief in a higher power, dogma, rituals, ethics, theology.

There's another threat in changing how we categorize Islam: by saying its not a religion, Robertson is isolating it, labeling it as something even more foreign and alien. His listeners are religious. But Muslims are to be seen as something else, not merely a group with different beliefs but a group who is not religious at all.

And from there, it's an easy step to accuse them of being anti-religious, which whips all sorts of people up into fits. It's juvenile and childish. Unfortunately, too often it also works.

November 12 is celebrated by Baha'is as the birthday of Baha'u'llah, founder of the Baha'i Faith.

Official holidays of the Baha'i Faith, including the birthday of Baha'u'llah, are expected to be marked with the suspension of work or school. Beyond that, however, celebrations widely vary. They might involve a communal meal and scripture readings, and they are generally open to the public.

A judge in South Carolina has ruled that legal license plates bearing a cross and the words "I believe" on them are unconstitutional. He also accused legislators, who unanimously approved the plates of "unnecessarily draw[ing] the state into an expensive lawsuit."

I can't even begin to comprehend how these people thought such a move would be legal, especially when some lawmakers were against offering similar plates for other faiths.

This shouldn't have needed to go to court. The problem with the plates should have been obvious. Separation of Church and State, folks. It's very cut and dry on this one.

And seriously, why push so hard for it? There's plenty of ways people express their faith on their cars. Why insist on including the license plate? What possible reason could have fueled this besides a hamfisted attempt to prove that this is a Christian nation?