Very nice article. Not much to disagree with at all.

As to "how those people that do actively spend time on spirituality fit in", my preferred analogy is a medical one. My own preferred spiritual path is a Buddhist one in which its basic teaching is set out in the form of a classical Indian medical diagnosis: there's a malady, there's a cause of the malady, a cure exists and here is the course of treatment.

Many truly spiritual people who are 'actively spending time' on it have an understanding that this, far from making us superior, is an indication that we have particular problems that require drastic 'medication' (- or meditation ) In fact the vast majority of my friends are completely unreligious, in much the same way as most of a diabetic's friends don't have to take insulin.

The fanciful-sounding Mahayana Buddhist expression that we are all 'already enlightened' is just a 'spiritual' way of saying much the same as you have said.

"Many truly spiritual people who are 'actively spending time' on it have an understanding that this, far from making us superior, is an indication that we have particular problems that require drastic 'medication' (- or meditation ) In fact the vast majority of my friends are completely unreligious, in much the same way as most of a diabetic's friends don't have to take insulin."

That's another good way of thinking about it, although I kind of like how mine doesn't say there's anything wrong with anyone Aren't I nice?

"The fanciful-sounding Mahayana Buddhist expression that we are all 'already enlightened' is just a 'spiritual' way of saying much the same as you have said."

Wow, it seems that someone else has already come up with the things I'm saying. I don't know if I should be happy that I figured these out on my own, or pissed that I wasn't the first

What if spirituality, while it is an innate part of us, and we all have "enough," can be "strengthened," like with other parts of our bodies? I mean, many of us in the world have sufficient leg muscles to walk, so none of us are better "walkers" than others, but some have muscles enough to run miles and miles without tiring. I'm sure that spirituality doesn't fit so nicely into such an analogy, but I like to think of it as something that is fully a "part" of us that we can either focus on or not focus on. Something that can be made stronger or weaker, but that is always fully a part of us because it exists just as much as our physical bodies exist.

my next article on the subject will attempt to reconcile spirituality with the fact that young children have obviously not thought about the meaning of life, as I say I believe is required for someone to be called "spiritual." I

I'm looking forward to reading this one, and I loved the Levi's/Hillfiger anology.
Good article.

Saying that we all have a spirit, and that therefore we are all 'spiritual', is rather like saying we all have muscles and are therefore athletes. While we all have muscles some of us a rather less well-prepared to exert them than others, and some of us prefer to lie on the couch shoving beer and chips in our faces.

Which is fine. Some worship their gods through indulgence, some through self-denial. What makes me uneasy about the article is its complacent self-satisfaction.