LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY nebris)

( The most revealing statement is down near the bottom )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY njtech)

I've been thinking about something... most major religions appear to me to be initially culturally based and therefore location based. If individuals move, they take their religion with them, but I wonder if they then try to encourage those that they meet to embrace their religion. I don't know enough about various religions to answer this, but the only religion that comes to mind that does this is Christianity. I've never met a Jew who encouraged me to switch to Judaism, or a Muslim who wanted me to follow the teachings of the Koran. They simply wanted the right to follow their practices as they saw fit.

Note that what I am refering to here is religion that that is longstanding and typically eminates from a particular geographical area where it was practices hundreds or thousands of years ago. I am not refering to things like Hare Krishna's, Scientology, Reverand Moon or other groups that could be called cults. Those definately rely on the bringing in of new followers. Often these religions are offshoots of exisitng religions like Christianity anyway.

Does anyone have any ideas on this?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY wyldraven)

FDA expected to allow some non-prescription sales of morning-after pill ( Read more... )
I have always defined a compromise as a resolution with which no one is happy. I predict that this will meet that definition. Still, it is a step in the right direction.

Link to the official FDA page on Plan B

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY velvetpage)

And not the six-foot furry kind, either. The nasty political kind.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/washington/24evo.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Of all the majors to be accidentally omitted from a list of science majors eligible for a huge financial government grant (US) it had to be evolutionary biology.

Coincidence? If the "mistake" is reversed promptly, I'd accept that under protest.

Thanks dagoski for the link.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY wyldraven)

A Clash Between Two Cases Involving Equality and Religious Speech: How the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's Decisions Are Inconsistent

Two doctrines involving religious speech have proved to be on a collision course, in two recent decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The question for the Fourth Circuit is what "equality" in the free exercise cases really means.

In April of 2005, the Fourth Circuit held, in Simpson v. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, that local government can intentionally and publicly discriminate against minority religious denominations. But this month, the Fourth Circuit held in Child Evangelism Fellowship v. Montgomery County Public Schools, that a public school's refusal to permit Christian evangelistic literature in its take-home flyer program was potentially viewpoint discrimination, and, therefore, unconstitutional.

In this column, I'll explain why the two decisions cannot be reconciled, and put them in the larger contexts of Supreme Court precedent and the Christian evangelical "equality" movement.