{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029593094944512947, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004932182490752158, 'mean_word_length': 4.8, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Taking religion seriously.

breaks fresh ground in "Tales Publicly Allowed: Competence, Capacity, and Religious Belief" (Jan-Feb 2007). Her claim that persons can lack capacity for decision-making yet retain competence to decide is refreshing, for it suggests that more is at stake than autonomy in the debate over decision-making. Religion may include a set of basic moral premises, but it is much more than that. Martin helpfully notes that not all religious claims have the same epistemic status. Some, such as a belief in God, may be beyond evidential backing; others, such as a claim that men and women are of different moral status, may be vulnerable to an evidentiary counterargument. Saying that all religious moral claims are of equal status when medical decisions are at issue ignores this difference.