Here's how I translate this into language I can understand (please help me if I get it wrong, I'm not too bright);
Stephen Calhoun wrote:
In noting the picking and choosing of the norms provided for by the ethical, (among many,) standards provided for in 'a' religious framework, the discussion immediately drills into the levels and qualities, (ref: Wilber,) the meme dynamics (ref; Cowen & Beck,) descriptive and operational frameworks, (to whit; the disciplinary: psychology, sociology, philosophy, anthropology, history of religion).
When we talk about religion, there are a lot of different factors to consider, because it's a complex issue.
Both broadly and with certain particularity, the choice-making at the level of the individual apprehension of a 'metaphysical' perspective also fits into the individual's construction of a worldview, or perspective about individual purpose in what is a cosmic scheme. The cosmic scheme is itself experienced, felt, analyzed, interpreted, concretized, into the seeming facts and beliefs about the nature of one's own reality and how these self-held apprehensions fit into a reality that also makes room for the diversity of self-held apprehensions.
Spirituality is very personal and individual.
This gets very complicated very quickly. Here is the dovetailing with the concept of cognitive complexity: to what extent do we subject our own world views to a critical estimation of their application beyond the application to just our self, and, beyond the group for which self-held apprehensions are in substantial sympathy, converge together enough so it is valid to see them as self-same, i.e. the group's constitutive individuals are in agreement, even bonded together.
Our individual beliefs cause us to seek others with similar beliefs. This reinforces our beliefs.
It is possible in the devising of a critical frame to learn from its application to what extent a given world view can actually be criticized by this application. For example, there are many ways to psychologize religious beliefs, (or apprehensions of a world view). Psychologizing proceeds from the recognition that any self-held apprehension is in some way a matter of mental function, and of the properties of mental life. Belief expresses an intention; as does analysis, interpretation, perception, apprehension. In the psychologically-minded view, religious and spiritual experience, understanding is mental, cognitive, an aspect of 'psyche/eros,' etc..
Different types of beliefs and practices appeal to different people for a variety of complex reasons.
In light of this, no matter what the content of religious or spiritual belief specifically is, is about, the critical framework of psychology, (and 'psychology' here captures all the diverse critical applicable frameworks,) is concerned with, among many concerns, what purposes does the individual's world view serve.
This complexity is not "religion" specific.
The 'researcher' can divide persons into two categories: one, those who are able to subject their world views to critical analysis re-cognition, re-apprehension, and, two, those who cannot.
But, obviously, this latter category of persons nevertheless may be subjected to this by the outside researcher! Why? Because there is no way to make the case that a given world view is immunized from the ontological actuality: it is necessarily at least partly produced as a matter of mental phenomena. Just as obviously, a world view is a phenomena able to be scrutinized from many disciplinary frameworks.
Some people have an understanding of their belief system that goes beyond emotional response.
Religions have developed strategies and tactics enabled for other purposes, but serving often the purpose today, to insulate them from scrutiny. A 'popular one' is the appeal to absolute, concrete, a priori "truth". From which the religionist picks and chooses! The researcher subjects both the truth claim and the psychological process of choosing (from one, but not another,) to investigation.
(Here's where my questionable understanding really comes into play because I completely reject the premise that "religions" have developed strategies and tactics, so the following is my interpretation of what was written).
Some religious disciplines prefer unquestioning belief even though each sect may have its own understanding of the overall belief system. For example, the Pope is different in his beliefs from Billy Graham although they are both Christians.
***
One of the objectives of building community intelligence is to implement frameworks and tools which cause self-criticism. In a sense, it comes down to that. The ramification of practiced self-criticism poses further results; mentioned previously were re-cognition (to think it over again,) and re-apprehension, (to understand differently,) etc.
Part of community building is to better understand ourselves and our beliefs.
The concept of religious tolerance is both simple, and once moved into a critical spheres of inquiry, complex and sophisticated.
If I truly understand what my beliefs mean to me, I can accept that others feel as deeply as I do, even if our beliefs are in opposition.
