Is there danger in being "spiritual and not religious"?

I saw this article:

Are there dangers in being 'spiritual but not religious'? - CNN.com

The Dec-Feb 2005/2006 issue of What is Enlightenment (issue 31) features a young woman in yoga tights opposite a nun. The theme of the issue was "Spirituality vs. Religion." The issue is in my magazine rack, but the implication of the issue and particular slant of the publication, did not fully hit me until a later date. Then, the thought hit me, as I once again glanced at the cover of the magazine; Are you trying to tell me that the young woman in yoga tights is "spiritual," while the nun is simply "religious;" and is therefore, more "spiritual" by implication? The fully implications of hubris in claiming to be "spiritual, but not religious" did not really dawn on me until thinking it through at that point. It assumes that we ourselves can discern truth from error, so we pick and choose; or just select what is merely fashionable, like the young woman in the Ganesh necklace with no real concern over the deity's tangible existence.

Therefore, in the article, Fr. Martins conclusion about the phrase hinting at egotism I believe is correct and a real danger in making such an assumption. Besides the possibility of leading to "complacency and self-centeredness," as Jesuit priest James Martin further suggested; I believe we also essentially set ourselves up as our own god believing we can decide right from wrong, and decide what is moral from immoral, in making such an assumption.

Actually deciding immorality from morality is self-evident. Any honest assessment of self & one's behavior & consequences of one's behavior as it relates to others would provide those answers.

I saw this article:

Are there dangers in being 'spiritual but not religious'? - CNN.com

and wondered what the folks here would think.

Do you agree that absence of an organized religion in ones life leaves them less likely to live in a highly moral way?

Thanks in advance for an interesting and respectful discussion.

I agree. The key is as you say an "honest assessment" of the consequences of one's behavior. However, the basis of the thread asked is there a danger in claiming to be "spiritual, but not religious;" and the inherent danger is that can lead to pride, and in becoming a law unto oneself. Then, behavior that gratifies one's selfish desires, and doing one's "own thing" can be done in the name of "spirituality."

But, don't get me wrong, I am a bit of an eclectic, and I tend to be distrustful of all forms of tyranny, and that includes what the founding fathers called "priestcraft," or organized religion. I am distrustful of any system that attempts to control or manipulate people. And, I am not completely against using the self-designated title of being "spiritual, but not religious." However, elevating oneself to the point of spiritual hubris, and then using the cloak of spirituality to justify one's own behavior, and even lawlessness (since one becomes a law unto oneself), I believe are inherent dangers. Therefore, claiming to be "spiritual, but not religious" does come with a couple of caveats.

I'm not part of an "orgnanized relgion" however I answer "christian" and not "spirtual but not religions" because, I am religious, I'm a Christian, it doesn't mean it's organized.

"spirtual but not religious" means, well, spiritual, but not religious.

I give people a chance who state it on the small chance they are Chrstians who don't go to church, and they felt this was the most accurate portrayal, or something like that.

Because, yes, it is actually a big deal to me.

That said, almost everyone I've dated has been agnostic, jewish, or something else.

Thats why it matters...lol