Response to Daniel Fulton

"I would interpret commercial software as parallelling more formal "book" religion, our religion in boxes. Formal religions often intentionally denounce each other and are "incompatible." There adherence to rules and accepted practice make them slower to change. There is no strong modern parallel to "open source religion." Religious communities exist, but very few consciously work to dynamically change to suit the religious needs of their adherents. What would be necessary for a consciously dynamic religion?"


I thought that this computer metaphor was an excellent parallel, especially about the traditional "book religions" purposefully canceling each other out. I would briefly like to address the question of open source religions. Back home in minneapolis, I sang in the choir of Plymouth Congregational Church for two years. While at first I went to church each sunday suspicious of the congregation and paranoid that they would try to convert me, I quickly realized that this was a flexible and open minded religious community, accepting of other religious beliefs and aware of the fantastical and metaphorical quality of the christian religious texts. They emphasized the unity of world religions and the importance of embracing all beliefs, whether christian, jewish, hindu, atheist, agnostic or wicca. I know that many religions are expanding their views to "comfortably provide religion to the modern educated, open minded individual". They have changed their rules to fit the needs of the consumer and to collaborate with neighboring religions. I think this fits the qualities of an "open source religion".