If you want to do science, you need to stick to terms that have scientific definition and testability. If you look up "selfish" at Merriam Webster, you get:

Definition of SELFISH:

1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others (a selfish act)

3: being an actively replicating repetitive sequence of nucleic acid that serves no known function (selfish DNA); also : being genetic material solely concerned with its own replication (selfish genes)

That third definition is in there because of the usage by Prof. Dawkins in his famous book. The problems come because people connect the scientific definition (3) with the (generally considered pejorative) human behavioral definitions (1) and (2). This has been the "down side" of the choice of that metaphor. Genes don't have a "self" that they can consider benefit to or against. The metaphor was that the genes cause behavior that resembles self serving behavior in persons who do actively seek benefit for a "self." However, it was just a metaphor, there is no "self" there. Great care must be observed when trying to use definition (3) in the scientific context, because it requires walking a tight rope to avoid error by anthropomorphism.

We have come a long way from 2010, and here is a big win today for draw Mo day #3!! Yea, this guy -::o}-<

Watch and feel good about the change:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ZKwFhh_Gw

Something that struck me about this article is that there is no difference between Camping's followers and the rest of the religious faithful, except that Camping's found out they were deluded by a fixed date.

Re Comment 53 by xmaseveeve, it brings us to the question of what is legal v. what is doable in practice. Having these 40k guys isolate the women was doable this time because the general population did not know it was going to happen. If the word gets around and a couple of thousand women show up next year making enough fuss, it will still be legal, but not necessarily doable.

Would this rally have been legally permissable if it had been 'whites only'?

Yes, I think so. White supremacists have these kind of rallies, but thankfully not to these numbers, and they are always met with counter demonstrations. Private groups are legally allowed to limit their membership as long as doing so does not constitute a blockage to advancement in the public sphere for non-members. For example, the Boy Scouts have rallies that are closed to gays and atheists.