This is a good post, but I disagree with this:
I think only religions that focus on the experiences of their practitioners today, and that find the spiritual within the world and not bestowed from above it can coexist amicably with science, democracy, and freedom. (my emphasis added)
Buddhism, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, certainly sees the spiritual as being derived from outside the realm of samsara, which is pretty much equivalent to being “bestowed from above”. It’s true that Western Buddhists tend to emphasize the here-and-now, but that’s very much different from Asian Buddhism. The general view there is that one tries to accumulate enough good karma to eventually incarnate in a life in which one can become a monk (or in some versions, incarnate in the Pure Land) and thus acheive nirvana, thus transcending the world. In any case, Buddhism exists quite amicably with science, democracy, and freedom. Similar arguments could be made for Hinduism.

I think “transcending the world” is a refutation of on-the-ground experience and physical reality. Why would anyone want to transcend or rise above life? Doesn’t that negate the very reason we’re here? Nirvana sounds boring so I won’t be going there! I want passion and fun and excitement in my spiritual life, not BLAH. I think the “King in the Sky” mentality is what goes us here in the first place with fundies. We need gods who are more grounded in reality, grounded in the present and grounded in the interior universes that we all come from – the dreaming universe for one is the most intimate I can think of. It’s like a whole other personality, the dreamer. And you have intimate access to it! I do not think we can co-exist with religious people who insist on being closed-down, closed-minded, mean and hateful and intolerant. Look at what’s happening in Oklahoma now and other so-called “conservative” places. The laws they’re passing aren’t so much conservative as they are based in religious backwards backwoods beliefs. We are going to have to make laws to protect us from these religious nuts!!

I hold no brief for Biblical literalists, Gus, but, respectfully, I believe that your penultimate paragraph is a bit of a reach.
”Being itself irrational this kind of religion lacks the capacity to respond rationally to different points of view. It can think only in terms of denunciation and suppression. And so, hidden in its core, is the threat of violence, a violence that always surges to the surface when the opportunity arises.”
My submission is that this statement is far too absolute, and that the responses of denunciation, suppression, and ultimate violence are neither universal nor inevitable for adherents of Biblical literalism. In my own admittedly limited experience, the literalist response to opposing points of view is most often the generation of internally consistent rationalizations that attempt to neutralize those viewpoints. For example, a young-earth creationist, faced with apparently incontrovertible geological evidence that the earth is considerably older than 6,000 years, may assert that this evidence was planted by God to test people’s faith (or by the devil to tempt them away from their faith). This is unconvincing to people like us, of course; but, being internally consistent, it allows them to retain their belief system without compromise.
Certainly religious fanaticism can lead to violence, but I believe that we must be cautious about asserting that it must inevitably do so.

I too have to respectfully disagree (I love reading your blog though, it makes me think a lot!)
“I think only religions that focus on the experiences of their practitioners today, and that find the spiritual within the world and not bestowed from above it can coexist amicably with science, democracy, and freedom.”
I beieve and hope this is incorrect. As a Christian (of the non-literalist sort) of course I find the spiritual bestowed on the world from above, as well as being there throughout the world – at least I think I do – maybe you could define what you include in “the spiritual”? But I also believe evolution is almost certainly true, or at the very least the best explanation we’ve found so far. I have no problem with democracy or freedom either, and I know plenty of other Christians in the same boat (perhaps you know of the author Brian McLaren or others in the “emergent Christian” category).
The news item is saddening and somewhat disconcerting too. I hope someday soon such cases (of dismissal for agreeing with science) will start to be the exception rather than the norm in Christian circles as everywhere else.

Marlon Hartshorn: I think the “King in the Sky” mentality is what goes us here in the first place with fundies.
But Buddhism has no “King in the Sky”–it’s non-theistic! Also, the Hindu Brahman or Atman is so abstract as to be hardly a person, let alone a “King in the Sky”.
Why would anyone want to transcend or rise above life?
Maybe because for most humans who have ever lived, and a majority of those alive now who are not in First World countries, life has been horrible, miserable, and, as Hobbes put it, “nasty, brutish, and short”?
I want passion and fun and excitement in my spiritual life, not BLAH.
Siddhartha Gautama had huge amounts of passion, fun, and excitement in his life until he realized that sickness, old age, and death are inevitable for us all, no matter how much “passion, fun, and excitement” we may have in our lives. Hence his spiritual quest which resulted in his enlightenment.
I do not think we can co-exist with religious people who insist on being closed-down, closed-minded, mean and hateful and intolerant.
See, here and elsewhere in your post you’re conflating religions that believe in a transcendent reality with Fundamentalist Christians. I’m talking about Buddhism! Most Buddhists (and I’m married to one, I might point out) are far from being “closed-down, closed-minded, mean and hateful and intolerant”! Nor does belief in a transcendent reality make one any of those things. Also, I think it’s rather slanderous to conflate Fundamentalists with Christians in general, many of whom are quite open-minded and tolerant.
Look, you’re entitled to your views, but to say that nirvana is BLAH isn’t really an argument, nor does it address what I was saying. I said that I think Gus is wrong to say that only religions that “find the spiritual within the world and not bestowed from above” can “coexist amicably with science, democracy, and freedom.” That doesn’t mean you have to be a Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, or Jew, or to even like their religions; it just means you shouldn’t tar them with the brush of close-mindedness, intolerance, or being incompatible with democracy and freedom just because they think there might be more to the spiritual life than that which is “within the world”.

I hate to do back-to-back posts, but on reflection it struck me that Marlon Hartshorn’s post is almost paradigmatic of the type of stuff that rubs me the wrong way and that I had in mind on the earlier thread about evil and the world.
Let me preface this by saying that I am in no way intending to be personal or hostile towards Marlon, and of course I can’t read his mind, nor do I know his personal life. I am thus prepared to acknowledge being completely wrong, and to apologize for any errors or mischaracterizations I may perpetuate.
Having said that, let me point out the following things:
1. With due respect, and the awareness that I may be misinterpreting (the ever-present danger of the Web), this post does not sound like the thoughts of someone who has experienced true suffering, either of self or loved ones. To speak of transcendence as “boring” and to speak of wanting “passion and excitement” in one’s spirituality when apparently being unaware of just how few people are able to have enough food, let alone passion and excitement, sounds to me as rather shallow and immature, and lacking in empathy for the less fortunate.
2. Marlon dismisses an entire religious tradition which he may (or may not) have knowledge of, as boring (one imagines him saying it, “BOOORRRR-ing!”) and “BLAH”. Would a Christian get a pass for such an off-hand and simplistic dismissal of another faith?
3. I made no mention at all of any Abrahamic faith, and yet in his fifth sentence, Marlon starts on about the “‘King in the Sky’ mentality”. In short, he not only jumps from talking about Dharmic faiths with no warrant, but he is talking about a cartoon version of monotheism. No one has to subscribe to or even like monotheistic faiths; but I wish those who want to dismiss them as “Old Man in the Sky” fictions or some such would take some time and read Pseudo-Dionysius or Evagrius Ponticus or John of the Cross or Meister Eckhart or Rumi or Kabir or the Zohar. Or, for that matter, why do they never seem aware of very tolerant monotheisms such as Sikhism or Zoroastrianism? Anyway, only monotheists with very simplistic, cartoon views of their religion (of which, alas, there are a lot) believe this way, and I think it’s as much unfair to characterize monotheism in general this way as it is for Fundamentalists to indiscriminately accuse Pagans and others of “devil worship”.
4. The type of process in 3 I see all the time, including in an exchange with a Pagan friend of mine a few months ago. It’s sort of like this: A. Blame everything bad in the world and in spirituality on a certain form of certain religions (Fundamentalist Chritianity, radical Islam, etc.); B. Generalize this to all forms of said religion; C. If someone brings another religion into it, or tries to have some subtlety, ignore it and bash Christianity/Islam/monothesism/whatever some more. Really, this is what happened with my friend–I kept talking about Buddhism and in every response he was decrying Jerry Falwell, Baptists, Catholics, and anything else monetheistic he could think of without ever once addressing what I was talking about!
Now the point here is not to attack Marlon in any way; nor is it to imply that the views I’ve outlined here are representative of or typical of Paganism or non-Christian religions in general. I do note that I encounter them with stunning frequency in Pagan discussions. Gus and Franklin and others here are much more nuanced than this, and I would not attribute these views to them, although I do note that sometimes Gus does tend to detour to rag on Fundamentalists while sounding as if what he really means is “Christians”; and his statement about “religions that focus on the experiences of their practitioners today, and that find the spiritual within the world and not bestowed from above it” as being the only ones compatible with democracy, freedom, etc. sounds like an oblique way of saying that monotheistic faiths are inherently undemocratic, intolerant, and cruel. I don’t think that’s what he meant to say, but all of us often say things from our gut that we may not be quite aware of (and I include myself in that).
Anyway, none of this is mean to be offensive; just to provoke thought, to show how things sound to an outsider sometimes, and to encourage more nuanced and careful thought on these matters.

Dear Mr. whoever you are – I never could know your name, where is it printing in your articles? – There is no such a thing as “Biblical Christianity. I presume that you are talking about Evangelical Christians, also called “Fundamentalist Christians.” They are related to charismatic figures like Billy Graham.

Turmarion: Buddhism is a way of life, not a religion. I never mentioned the word Buddhism in my post. You said in your own words as anyone can plainly read that Buddhism “sees the spiritual as being derived from outside samsara…which equals being “bestowed from above.” That means “King in the Sky,” to me. Above means King in the Sky, it means a God up above you in the heavens.
I don’t see any excuse for people living in filth and poverty. People have to fight for everything and good living conditions are not any different. There is no real reason to live that way. If people are miserable and horrible, then stop living that way! You may be living in a repressive governmental situation and in those situations, I see your point, where a person cannot get out of that situation. Having worldwide democracy would change all of this! Why do you think America is the greatest country in the world? We have troubles, but we also have a good system of water, fire and police protection provided to us by taxes.
Again, I did not mention Siddhartha Gautama or Gautama Buddha or any figures from Buddhism. The point I was making is that Buddhism does have some inherent flaws in it: you cannot refute the natural person and everyday experience and “rise above it,” while trying all the while to be spiritual and golden and Nirvana-like, because that is denying the natural person you are, and you cannot close your eyes to filth and poverty or abhorrent living conditions. One must change these first, then you can go about having higher spiritual understandings. And sickness is not inevitable for us all, thank you very much. ALL forms of illness are a result of misdirected energy, period. Not all people fall ill. Not all people have to construct such realities to reach spiritual perfection. Just because you age does not mean you have to get sick and fall apart. That experience is the result of your beliefs about reality, not reality itself.
And I am certainly not confusing Buddhism with fundies. After I said the word “blah,” my thoughts on Buddhism were done. I simply pointed out in a few sentences what I see as some flaws in Buddhistic thinking, that’s all. The rest of my post was about fundies and the fact also that any type of religious belief that leads you away from understanding your dreaming personality better is not going in the right direction.
And you are correct, it’s not an argument to say Nirvana is blah, because I’m not arguing about it. It is not my intention to really argue about any of this.
Gus was not saying he criticized people because they think there is more to the spiritual life than that which is within the world exactly, he was saying he is criticizing people because they exclusively believe in the King in the Sky mindset where all the rules are in one book and you don’t have to think for yourself, just be a robot. That’s different than what you said in the last couple of sentences.
For the second post, I am not dismissing an entire religious tradition, why on Earth would you say this? Can a person not be critical of 2 or 3 things about a way of life like Buddhism and not be “critical of the entire religion?” That’s exaggerated and silly and if I were critical of Buddhism for some major reason, I would have said so.
When did I mention a Dharmic faith? You read way too much into my post! It was meant as a simple statement of my personal insight.
I think I covered the other points you made already.
I didn’t think you were being hostile though Turmarion! I just don’t think we mentally connected as to what point I was making is all. I have no issue with any Indian faiths really, and no I’m not aware of much of it at all. But I am familiar with some concepts in Buddhism that always bothered me, the main thing being that you can’t understand your higher spiritual nature by refuting the lower nature.
I’m certainly not an expert in world religions or even philosophy. I do read Schopenhauer and he admired and read the Vedas and had great respect for their better understandings of some things in life. I also read a lot of Seth books by Jane Roberts and I do consider myself an expert of sorts on the subconscious and dreaming. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

The term “Biblical Christian” is not of my devising. It is used by some fundamentalist Christians to differentiate themselves from others who are somehow “nonBiblical.” Keep your ears open and you will hear it. But yes- I mean fundamentalists who argue for Biblical literalism.
I have come to the conclusion I did very painfully, and know that there are plenty of conservative Christians who are personally very far removed from acts of violence – thank the Gods. Some take the admonition “my kingdom is not of this world” seriously and seek to preserve their own communities and otherwise be left alone. But as a community, they are a volcano because the habits of mind they have developed remove them from engagement in democratic life. (Look at how we continually hear that there was something illegitimate about the Democratic victory in 2008. Democrats did not do the same regarding Bush’s more than iffy victory in 2000).
Whenever conservative Christians become such a cultural majority that they have unrestricted political power, or think they can attain it, the result is most unpleasant for different points of view. Always, so far as I know. If any of you can point to significant counter examples, please let me know and I will happily modify my statement.
Small communities are often peaceable. Larger ones begin to have leaders arise who take the injunction to convert the world and interpret it in a forceful way. In the South the community is not small, it dominates, but it is subordinated to the US Constitution, much as they chafe over that fact. Only a fool or someone who does not read the news would think the leaders of that community would respect religious freedom if they had the power not to. And such a habit of mind would soon spill over into the rest of politics, as happened in Iran.
Because they can make their case neither through logic (WHY should a non-Christian grant the Bible is the word of God without evidence, for example?) nor through myths, because they are literalists, all they have left to justify their position is the power of their will to believe – what they call their “commitment.” Those of us honest in our uncertainties and believing others are similarly honest are often initially impressed with their confidence. (Surely something that could so convince someone would be worth my checking out…) But that gives their confidence more credibility in our term than it deserves. It is pride hiding behind the garb of piety.
When commitment subordinates reason and evidence discussion between equals seeking agreement is replaced by a one sided certainty that on matters of spirituality that person KNOWS, his or her target does not and is knowingly or unknowingly in the grip of evil, and the committed one has nothing to learn from the other except how better to spread the gospel if he or she succeeds in their conversion.
This attitude seems to infect the ability to be good citizens. Democracy does not come naturally to human beings. It requires attitudes of mind that must be learned and practiced. That is why it cannot be easily exported, if exported at all, and why countries need to get there on their own initiative.
In particular, the attitudes I am diagnosing undermine the concept of a loyal opposition, a concept so essential to democratic society. (Look how easily and quickly Waltke, a long-time conservative Evangelical, was accused of heresy.) Politics, like religion, becomes “war.” We are seeing this today throughout the fevered swamps where Biblical Christianity meets politics, from murdering abortion doctors and their associates and making their killers heroes and martyrs to mob hysteria against the Dixie Chicks for the crime of saying they were embarrassed Bush was from Texas to many many other examples.
I am NOT saying that all suchl Christians are violent. I AM saying that their theological position undermines their capacity to be good citizens in a democracy by subordinating reason and evidence and willingness to consider other points of view to their willful certainty they are right. The peaceful among them usually provide political support to the thugs among them who seek power over the rest of us. The problem is built in to habits of mind that ultimately reject reason and evidence available to others for determining how they would require others to live.
Look at the incredible lies and alternative realities sealed off from exposure to contradictory evidence that pervades that community. Look at how the same habits of mind they use to interpret their Bible, habits immune to logic and evidence, spill over into discussing public policy. “Death panels” anyone? Killing grandma? Slavery was not central to the Civil War? We are dealing with a culture that subordinates respect for truth to indulgence in the feeling they are right.
Since most of these folks are good people within their own communities (I am not demonizing here, I am diagnosing) all I can conclude is that they have never been taught to think rationally or deal with uncertainty on issues of meaning and community. I am not saying the rest of us do this perfectly – but on balance post Enlightenment democratic cultures respect reason and evidence over will to believe and accept the possibility they might be wrong and the inevitability that agreement among good people will never be universal. I am arguing there is more than simple correlation here.
Further, as a religious community they have little historically demonstrated ability to prevent the rise of zealots who in the name of their God seek dominion over the world. ‘Dominion theology’ and similar lunacies play a significant role in the thinking of many of their leaders. We have a continuum here from fundamentalist literalists to theocrats with no clear doctrinal way to put on the brakes.
Democracy arose in opposition to this outlook and their demonstrated hostility to the Enlightenment that gave rise to it (see Texas BOE for example) is further evidence they are mentally unwilling to take upon themselves the responsibilities needed for practicing good citizenship.

I also failed to mention, about evolution: The evolution idea is based on a concept that time marches forever forward from some beginning point. The whole mental construct is in error relating to time. We neurologically perceive time as a series of moments, but I think that out of body, this sequence of time stops, and you can perceive that all events occur at one time. Add to this the inevitability of extraterrestrial intelligence one day contacting us, I think it is wise for us to consider other alternative explanations regarding how we as a human species came to be on Earth and how we evolve specifically as it relates to belief systems, electrical and chemical systems and if we were placed here by another species altogether. In my view, evolution did not occur as a single line process and I think the archaeological evidence will pan this out over the next 100 years.

Gus that is really a wonderful response. I’m so glad I read this blog! I don’t think I’ve ever heard these ideas couched in the way you term them. It really helps me understand what is going on in the world with a different angle than I’d thought of previously. Do you think the November elections will be a sweeping win for the Republicans? I don’t think so. I think Obama will win again in 2012 and I think more people are waking up to the insanities of the thinking of some people who call themselves conservative Republicans, in truth I don’t know what they are except what you describe as the opponents of democracy.

Thanks for the reply, Mr diZerega – guess I shouldn’t really call you Gus since we don’t know each other. Hope you won’t mind me defending my religion again.
You wrote “I think only religions that focus on the experiences of their practitioners today, and that find the spiritual within the world and not bestowed from above it can coexist amicably with science, democracy, and freedom.”
I still disagree, but if you’re qualifying this with the idea that it’s only fundamentalist adherents to those religions that are the problem, then I’d be closer to agreeing. I do agree that when *any* religion (including atheism) has had the upper hand politically things have tended to go pear-shaped at roughly the speed of light, and I can’t currently think of any examples where that has not been the case. But I interpret this as being more of a problem with humanity – or perhaps rather with the sort of people who are likely to actually want to be in power, or with the effect that power, especially absolute power, has on people – than with any religion. The religion (or at least its rules) just gives you an area to channel your abuse of power into.
You said “We have a continuum here from fundamentalist literalists to theocrats with no clear doctrinal way to put on the brakes.”
Maybe that’s why Jesus didn’t want to be made king. I would say that is one doctrinal (and “Biblical”! lol) way for us Christians to put the brakes on those among us seeking a theocracy: if Christ deliberately avoided political power, probably his followers should avoid it too. Being an informed voter is something else, of course. Another (potentially more powerful) way to put brakes on would be to remember Christ’s exhortation to treat others as you would have them treat you. If I wouldn’t like my religion to be marginalised or banned, then I shouldn’t do that to others when in power. If I wouldn’t like to be made to adhere to Islam’s rules, then I can’t force others to adhere to Christianity’s. (Yes, I know we have a rubbish history, and indeed a rubbish present, when it comes to obeying this command! And I would like to apologise unreservedly to anyone reading this who has been harmed by Christians. Sometimes we have obeyed it though. In the UK Christians were among the first to seek a ban on slavery, for this very reason.)
In Europe we heard rather a lot about how Bush’s victory in 2000 was a fake. It was all over the (British) media as I recall, and certainly all my Democrat-inclined friends were seething about it. And on message boards I currently see a fair bit about how Palin’s grandson is in fact her son (in spite of all scientific evidence to the contrary). I don’t think religious conservatives are the only ones who can be crazy and irrational when it comes to politics – again, I’d say it’s a human trait.
I do agree with the unfortunate lack of a concept of loyal opposition, but I think it is growing, albeit slowly. I mentioned the emerging/emergent church before. Of course it is decried as heresy by some, but at the same time others have welcomed it. Hopefully more will continue to do so until a more gentle way of “loving God and loving your neighbour” becomes the norm among Christians (as it should be).
Thanks for letting me say all that. Once again, I do enjoy reading your blog. It’s good to be challenged on whether we are thinking rationally at all – especially when that isn’t always questioned by fellow believers.

By the way, this bit I agreed with completely:
“When commitment subordinates reason and evidence discussion between equals seeking agreement is replaced by a one sided certainty that on matters of spirituality that person KNOWS, his or her target does not and is knowingly or unknowingly in the grip of evil, and the committed one has nothing to learn from the other except how better to spread the gospel if he or she succeeds in their conversion.”
and also the bit about democracy not being exportable. Very true.

Michaela-
You have a point. You called me on some sloppy wording. The final paragraph to which you allude was not the best written piece in my blogging career. I was trying to wrap the blog up and I also admit to have been trying to be provocative to a fault.
Were I to write that final paragraph again, I’d add one crucial qualification, one that I thought it was implicit in my piece taken as a whole. But I should have made it explicit. Any religion making monopolistic claims is an enemy of freedom, democracy, and reason if it does not ultimately let those claims be verified voluntarily, by personal experience and evaluation of evidence rationally presented. I am no enemy of democracy, freedom, or reason if I say my religion is best, but I am an enemy if I do not 100% and in good faith let others test my claims for themselves to their own satisfaction.
My target is the fundamentalists who are destroying American society. My initial example was conservative literalist Christianity and my criticisms were of those who argue that a literal interpretation of scripture is a valid approach to religion or spirituality. I said that a mythic interpretation was potentially fine and that interpretation was impossible to avoid, so that in fact no interpretation could make a reasonable claim to be the most literal. And I argued that irrationality was the outgrowth of such an approach, and that irrationality was a habit of mind that when elevated above reason and evidence made a person a poor citizen and a dangerous neighbor. Bad spiritual practices infect the rest of life.
Liberal Christians to my knowledge regard both personal experience and seeing God in the world as acceptable realms of spiritual experience. They do not regard the Bible as an inerrant source of information about worldly things. They often see other religions as spiritually acceptable, but their own preferred path is Jesus. I have no problem at all with this point of view. It is not mine, but I do not believe I have any monopoly on spiritual insight, or that my current level of understanding does not fall ultimately far short of the reality.
As you grant, there are places where Jesus rejects seeking political power, and nothing demonstrates the irrational pride and intellectual dishonesty of so many conservative Christians than those who seek to reinterpret his words to justify making this a “Christian” country. When politics is made “Christian” then there is no principled stopping point between having a “Christian” America and having a “Christian Dominion” America.
Bush’s victory in 2000 was almost certainly bogus. He did not receive a plurality of votes in Florida. Even so, after an initial period of grumbling Democrats let bygones be bygones. I personally believe both of his victories were fraudulent, with mobs in Florida preventing recounts in 2000, followed by a partisan Supreme Court overruling Florida’s own court, and then voting machines owned by Republican operatives with “proprietary” technology that had been proven beyond shadow of doubt to be easily gamed “counting” the votes in many states in 2004. Including the crucial state of Ohio with its Fundamentalist controlled electoral oversight. But so long as the possibility of improving the fairness of elections existed, we did not make anywhere as big a point of it as the anti-democratic lies coming from Teabaggers and other ignorant or dishonest attackers of the legitimacy of the democratic process, threatening violence, and other sedition.
Michela – these are not equivalents.

I will take your word for it on the political stuff, since I’m not an American.
Thanks for clarifying. I am happy now. Yes, your article did refer primarily to fundamentalists, which is why it seemed like a rather sudden jump at the end. I’m definitely with you on the idea that bad spiritual practices infect the rest of life (and vice versa can also be true).
enjoyed the discussion – thank you!

I think your most recent post clarified things enormously, Gus, and I’m glad that you acknowledge that the original could have been phrased better.
I also appreciate this sentence: “Any religion making monopolistic claims is an enemy of freedom, democracy, and reason if it does not ultimately let those claims be verified voluntarily, by personal experience and evaluation of evidence rationally presented.
When I started reading this, before I got to the “if” clause, I was thinking, “Oh, gee, there he goes again!” The second part, though, contextualized what you were saying, and as written it’s OK.
It recognizes a subtlety that a lot of people miss: you can make monopolistic claims without being a spiritual imperialist. E.g. Judaism is one of the least proselytizing religions around, and yet, for the Orthodox at least, there is no doubt that Judaism is metaphysically correct in a way that no other religion is. Ditto Buddhism–Buddhists are tolerant because they believe Buddhism is true. As long as a person, regardless of his religion, lives a good and moral life, he will eventually incarnate in a life in which he can receive the Dharma.
Christianity at its best is the same way–after all, Jesus said, “Whoever is not against us is with us.”
The point in all these cases is that they, as you say, “let the claims be verified voluntarily”. Most rabbis discourage potential converts to make sure they’re really sincere, and the Dalai Lama has said that if one really wants to be Buddhist, that’s OK, but that it’s better to stay in one’s original religion. The idea is that a person should make this decision purely out of true desire, not coercion, and should test it for himself. The record of my own church, the Catholic Church, has certainly not been stellar in the past, but my experience of the RCIA program (which is the program for people wishing to enter the Church) in present-day America, is that it is much the same. That is, no pressure, no problem if a person decides it’s not for him, no coercion.
Anyway, thanks once more for the clarification.

What if…just what if…words, phrases, and sentences possess more than a single unambiguous meaning?
Uh Oh! Strict literalism runs aground on the shoals of ambiguity and the rocks of interpretation.
Maybe it’s not the words, the recorded words, so much as the process of saying words and balancing on the currents of what they might mean.
P.S. I lke the new Captcha thingy better!