Magma

Sometimes, Chris, it seems the argument degenerates from the subject to being just about winning the argument itself.... about not being wrong.

"Which is exactly what I said, isn't it?

But it's not what you wrote - even allowing for the "disclaimer"."

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. You're also entitled to be wrong. It is silly that we are arguing not over the subject itself, but about whether or not we agree with the subject. I'm sorry, but finding or proving myself in agreement with you is far less important to me than the subject itself, so I will leave this discussion with you alone and not respond further.

...except for answering brazen close-mindedness or brilliant stupidity. --Not that I expect these from you, I just want to leave that door open in the off-chance that such arise.

******

"Are you saying that people ought to "get past" their religious beliefs?"

Actually, it's a far simpler explanation than whatever ill-politic connotation you want to contrive. "Get past" refers to the fact that someone without a great deal of religious belief - or, at least, religious angst over the worship question - does not normally suddenly develop a case of worry over the question of if they are worshipping by bowing. The question simply does not occur to them. Thus, the person who *does* encounter the question is the person who already has a good deal of belief (or angst), and only reconciles it be moving past the question/belief/angst. This is not a qualitative judgment or statement on my part, as you seem to take it. It is, rather, a chronological statement... that the person once had a question, but now does not.