I agree and further submit that this is such essential truth that Haidt will find it resonating in every "tradition". By definition, tradition fits into Haidt's empirical, rational view; because the traditions that have persisted as forces obviously have something to them (whether it is objectively right/wrong, w/e). I further submit that if a particular tradition understood this very very well, it would be more objective, an ideal balance that leads to a net gain of knowledge (through continued existence guaranteed through moral safeguard + open-ness to experience). That actually leads me into a particular religion, though I accept that it need not be thus. There is a degree of faith involved still.
Still, if I believe what I believe, I must also believe in getting closer to an "objective" religion (obviously, my view is that this is already so; I mean for wide change), one entirely empirical. This fits in with the general sentiment here I think. The overall goal is the same. If my religion is true, then this is proselytization for me. Is that perspective helpful in your research? My justification?
I too meant parts of the forum. I would not insult them. My intent to cooperate with them does not allow me to. After all, deed matters.