Bloodless Coup

Via Feministe.

Somehow I couldn't make that work with the table.

I had trouble with the code as well. I'm on the spiritual side, a Humanist, just like my recent antagonist, Mark, suggested.

Well, I have a few problems with this quiz - I don't know that I buy the death penalty fitting into it neatly, that people really remember that thing about the Easter bunny or that given its topic you should have questions that deal only with securing your own redemption - but for what it's worth, I came up 20% scientific and 40% reason, which makes me a Humanist (though pretty close to Agnostic).

And where healthy lifestyle fits in I don't know... does that make you a scientologist or something?

Weirdness...it's dead on for me.
You fit in with:
Taoism
Your ideals mostly resemble those of the Taoist faith. Spirituality is the most important thing in your life. You strive to live by all of your ideals, and live a very intellectually focused life.
60% spiritual.
20% reason-oriented.

Amusingly, one of the most religious people friends I have, an Neo-Calvinist, also registered as a Taoist.

Moon,
According to Wikipedia, Calvanism and Taoism do have some things in common: a focus on the abiding goodness of the original creation, and a healthy disdain for that free will distraction (which doesn't make any sense if one believes in a benevolent, all powerful, all knowing deity). They also have in common that God is at work in everything/tao is everywhere.

i think there are a lot of people who would challenge your reduction of millions of pages of scholarship on free will to the proposition that an omniscient and omnipotent deity necessarily precludes free will (i'm leaving out benevolent, because of course benevolence has nothing to do with it; indeed, omniscience and omnipotence might be seen to preclude such values judgments as benevolent generally).

but other than that, interesting information. i don't suppose it terribly surprises me; many religions overlap at their most basic levels. :-)

Moon,
I haven't found a convincing response to the idea that if God is the all-knowing creator, then God created all things knowing exactly what they were going to do once they were created, how their lives, and the lives of their descendants, would proceed for the duration of time. So what apppears as free will is nothing of the sort, because if God is all knowing, then God knows what each person is going to do in any situation they're faced with, so a person may believe they have a choice, but in reality that choice was made long before they existed, when God created the universe. So the choice/free will is only real to that person, and in the eternal sense it's an illusion (since God is all powerful, no person would be able to make a choice that could overcome the power of God's will).
I only throw in benevolent to make the point that Hell doesn't really exist under the kind of deity I've described because everything seen by others as sin is truly the will of this all powerful deity, against which a person has no defense, and all of their "sins" were foreseen by this deity, so no benevolent deity in the sense most people understand the word would force people to commit acts this deity knew they would have to commit, and then send them to Hell for it. You make a good point about omniscience throwing a wrench into the mix, what with no one who's not omniscient being able to have any idea about the thoughts of a deity who is. I'm not sure I would agree completely with the idea that omniscience would preclude all value judgments because there may be some value in such judgments to tell a story (to create conflict, or at least its illusion), even if in an eternal sense those judgments may not exist.