I don't disagree with the first part of your statement, but I think that in the area of psychology, there could be quite a bit of overlap between theology. For instance, the catholics have something called an annulment that people must go through if they've been divorced and want to get married again. There is also statistical evidence to show that the divorce rate among catholics who went through it is statistically lower than those who didn't. Now, is it because some magical thing happened or is it because in the process they have to deal with all of the excess baggage they would carry into the next marriage? I'd opt for the second explanation, however, for the past 1000 years, they've figured out it was good.

Or take the ancient Jews. They believe that their God told them not to eat pork. What we know through science is that the primitive cooking styles back then would not adequately kill off the worms and if eaten people would become sick. Regardless of whether one uses ancient theology or modern science, we would come to the same conclusion.

My point being is that so much of theology and science is based on actual experience. Of course, the scientific method is more efficient, but enough people eating undercooked pork and getting sick gets you to the same point. Heck, when I was in college, there was this new fangled thing called Quantum Theory and it was widely disputed. Now, it is pretty much mainstream. Why? Because our experience, this time through repeated experimentation and observation kept showing the same thing.

Don't get me wrong, I am not equating science and theology. They are two distinct things in their own realms. However, both depend on repeated experiences to come to their propositions.

As for theologians having nothing to offer, I'd be careful with that. In many fields, their were Jesuit Priests that were instrumental in them. They were both theologians and scientists.

It's still the same thing. Any scientist, who is intellectually honest will have to admit that the existence of a deity is outside the realm of what science could prove or disprove. Science can not and never will be able to show that a supernatural being exists or fails to exist. By definition, science can only deal with physical universe and by definition, a deity is outside that.

Again, I am not a theist, but I have no problem with people accepting a deity and find it no more difficult a concept to grasp than a cat being both dead and alive until you look.

I think Thomas Aquinas would disagree with that. Ignoring the god aspect of religion and just treating it like another world view/philosophy, all such philosophies have a theoretical framework. Religion as a philosophy would be no different.Now, if you want to take the approach that all philosophy is worthless, that is your prerogative, but you probably will find that is not as popular a notion as religion being worthless.

Different branches of science apply completely different standards of adequacy, consistency and correctness to each other, why should religion be any different? There is no such thing as "Science" that has a unified framework. Each branch has it's own framework. What works for a biologist probably would be pretty inadequate for a theoretical physicist. Likewise, what works for a theologian probably isn't going to work for a chemist and what a chemist uses won't work for a theologian. Then again, there could be some overlap in methodology between psychology, sociology and theology, but each still uses their own framework.

Judea-Christian seems to be your largest hangup, but it isn't the only religious avenue to explore. But even in Judea-Christian sects, the catholics, which are the largest group worldwide, are also the largest private funder of the sciences. Why would they do that?

Well, Megan Fox is neither a scientist nor a theologian, so her claims are likely to be invalid on either topic!

There is just as much practical knowledge in the field of theology as there is psychology, sociology and many of the other soft sciences. Both science and religion have their systematic, theoretical frameworks. As for theology being in direct contradiction to how the world seems to behave, while not a theist, I would argue just the opposite. theology only has the human experience to study and as such, is probably dead on with how the world behaves. As for disagreements between theologians, well that occurs even with scientists. For instance scientists agree that evolution occurs, but currently there are something like 36 competing theories as to exactly how. Theologians agree a deity exists, but vary on how it interacts.

Science and religion do not have to be opposed to each other. They can coexist quite happily. The only conflict comes is when either goes beyond it's theoretical framework and tries to apply it to the other.

A scientist who claims that science proves religion if far more likely to be invalid! Why? Because religion involves that which is outside the natural world while science is about the natural world. Neither the supernatural or natural can be used to prove or disprove the other.

That still won't work if you got off at Phoenix, you would need to somehow get to LAX for your return to JFK. Going JFK-LAX with a layover in Phoenix (or where ever) probably won't save you any money if the return flight is from the layover site. I regulary fly through Atlanta to get to Houston and my ticket is much cheaper than somebody going just from Atlanta to Houston.

As for the law suit, I'm curious as to the grounds? After all, this was all pubicly available information he used.

The govt, state or federal doesn't give billions to illegal aliens. On the other hand, they pay sales taxes, income taxes and social security taxes like everybody else. Of course, if their employer pays them under the table or doesn't report and remit those taxes to the govt., well, the problem is with the employer, not the immigrant. As for "welfare," well let's be fare. If the so called job-creators actually created jobs with the record profits they are reporting, then maybe they wouldn't have to pay so much in taxes to support those on welfare. The so called welfare system is in place to allow employers to pay a sub-liveable wage. Put differently, if employers paid liveable wages, then there wouldn't be nearly as many people on the various assistance programs.

So, in summary - illegal aliens getting a free ride - that's because of employers breaking the law to increase profit; welfare and subsidy programs - if employers paid a liveable wage, they programs wouldn't be needed. You are correct, though, both parties stopped long ago dealing with the real cause of problems.

The irony is that they are in the hospitality business!

It's funny. Many small hotel/motel chains offer free wifi and internet. But the big chains charge for it. Then if you set up a hotspot with your phone, they want to block that, forcing you to use their overpriced internet. They claim they have to cover their cost, but somehow the small chains cover their cost and don't even charge for it.

The study shows that the genes activate. It does not show that the activation results in a healthy and long life.

If the US can't enforce it's laws against content stored off shore, even if owned by an on-shore company, then what about the reverse? How can the DMCA be enforced against those in foreign countries? If Microsoft says that Irish law prevails because that is where the data is stored, then wouldn't the same be true for DMCA violations?

You can't have it both ways. Pirate Bay had it's data on foreign soil, but American companies had no problem with using American laws there. Of course, many countries have treatise with the US, but not all. If Microsoft wins this, do they create a big loophole?

The kid whose parents won't vaccinate them will also be protected by herd immunity. Herd immunity breaks done when there are a large number of unvaccinated individuals in close geographic proximity, in other words, exactly what you are proposing. It would seem a better solution would be to ensure these kids, who by the way are not refusing to be vaccinated (there parents are in control), to be spread throughout the school system instead of consolidated in one place. That is if the purpose is to protect everybody versus punish people.

Granted HIV and Hep C can't be spread by casual contact, but they can be spread by contact with bodily fluids. I shouldn't included TB, although it is interesting that there is a vaccine for it, but it is not required in the US for students. The over-reaction on Ebola is kind of what I am getting at. Yes, kids without vaccines are more likely to come down with measles, mumps, etc., but their ability to spread it is limited unless they are in contact with somebody with a compromised immune system such as the very young and very old or with somebody whose vaccine didn't take hold. For the former, it is unlikely that a school child would be in contact with such an individual at school. Their own family, yes, but that is the risk they take. For the latter, ineffective vaccine, they are at no greater risk than they are even if all of the people have had the shot.

Personally, I think the notion of these vaccines be dangerous is crazy. Is there some risk, yes, there is with everything. There's even risk that not having the vaccine and getting the disease will lead to complications. However, I don't think it is up to the government to quarantine people unless they are known to be infectious. People still have rights to seek medical treatment or not.

ps. thank you for not pointing out the misspelling of slope! I wish /. allowed edits.

You are still creating a "separate but equal" system, which the SCOTUS has said is a form of segregation. In this case, instead of segregating by color, it would be by religious belief, at least for those whose belief system didn't allow vaccinations. In addition, since the government would be doing this, you would still be putting the children without vaccinations at greater risk for contracting a disease, than if they were in a mixed class. The people at risk from the unvaccinated are the elderly and the very young. Neither of those two are likely to be in a school (k through 12).