Thank you for taking the time to comment and to raise some great questions. Hopefully, I will be able to clarify some of my points. Regarding my equating religion to one’s worldview, you asked if my definition was acceptable. I believe that it is, both according to Webster and on a practical level as well. Webster’s defines “religion” as: (def.1) “A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies..” (def.6) “Something a person believes in and follows devotedly.” (Notice that the latter doesn’t require a deity).

I would like to say that it is very great of you to be talking about these issues since not many people are willing to take that stand. But, I just have some disagreement's with this particular blog that I would like to hear you address.

First off you seem to equate religion and worldview when you say "A religion is fundamentally a worldview, a perspective, a set of assumptions, a ‘lens’ if you will, through which a person looks at everything in life in order to try and explain how all of life fits together in a coherent and comprehensive way." I'm not sure where you derived this definition, but is this definition acceptable? The Latin word for religion is religiō which has the connotation of a belief in a deity or its involvement in ones worldview per say . By etymology and definition in Webster's dictionary both involve the role of a supernatural creator. So the best definition would be one that involved a supernatural entity in a worldview.

Secondly what is meant by "You see? That’s exactly why I say that you should never discuss politics and religion!” and your definition are two different things. The philosopher Wittgenstein talks about language games and that when we use a word they can't have completely 100% objective meanings, words differ in the contexts in which we use them. So if I were to say brick to my two year old child I would in be teaching her what a brick is. But if I said brick to a friend when I am outside building a brick wall I am asking him to hand me a brick. The same word with two different meanings. And it is the same case with your use of the word religion. When the person says it in the first context he is very much referring to the practice and worship of a deity, like Christianity or other religions, where the definition you give for religion becomes a fundamentally different word. With these as two different words you cannot logically draw the conclusion, the argument falls subject to the fallacy of equivocation.

I hope to hear your thoughts if you have the time.