The key word in this week's question is "practices." One can adopt any number of them without canceling the prophetic wrods in the books of the Peoples of the Book, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. A quick example: Christians in the West enjoy Christmas trees and Easter eggs, the one probably a phallic symbol of a "pagan" religion Christianity was trying to displace. The others were symbols of fertility, as with the faith relating to Eostre, from which the festival got its name. The origins of these symbols may be forgotten, but it can be shown that Christianity did not become a phallic or fertility faith. It kept to its own story, out of which grew doctrine--and practices.

I won't speak for Muslims or Jews, but I know of "Buddhist Jews," who adopt some practices of Buddhim. JEsuits in Japan have long advocated some practices of Buddhism, and in India, from Hinduism. Thomas Merton was in dialogue with Buddhist and Hindu monks in Thailand the day he died; you can't get more catholically Catholic than the Trappist monks, and Merton was one.

Now: at their depth many Buddhist and Hindu practices are rooted in core understandings which can conflict with Christian, Jewish, and Muslim "faiths." John Cobb, noted student of Buddhist-Christian relations once wrote an essay, "Can a good Christian be a good Buddhist?" In the end, this generous thinker had to answer "no." The final word in Christianity is "God" and in Buddhism something like "sacred emptiness." They can continue the dialogue, but cannot become the other without leaving their own.

Our final commitments are related to "story," the special stories each faith tells. We can understand them across the boundaries, but we cannot "become" them when the stories conflict. Not to worry: people of faith can communicate across the boundaries and meet on many horizons, if they choose to. And they are more likely to believe deeply and act courageously if they operate out of the framework of those stories and not try to find some mushy center where they all agree.