errrrr so does everybody.

What law says I cannot comment on another person’s religion? Why should any law prohibit me from commenting on another person’s religion?

What law says I cannot say something that offends others and why should any law prohibit me from saying something that offends others?

The right to comment on another person’s religion or say something that offends others is a measure of the freedom of speech in any society.

The lack of wisdom in making comments that others might take offence at is a real question to ask but it’s not the issue. Of greater importance is the right to speck one’s mind.

Yuyutsu,

<<Modern dictionaries were written by those of the sciencist (sic) persuasion who wish to denigrate religion.>>

That's your assertion, but you provided no evidence to support your claim.

Oxford Dictionaries online provides these three definitions of religion:

1. 'The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods'.

2. 'A particular system of faith and worship'.

3. 'Pursuit or interest followed with great devotion' (Oxford Dictionaries Online 2017. s v religion)

However, your claim is that <<all lovers of God must rebuke this mockery by dictionaries>>. The Oxford dictionary affirms belief in and worship of a personal God or gods. That is not a mockery but an affirmation of worship of a superhuman [supernatural] personal God. That should bring one closer to God.

O'Chee's article challenges what is happening in some Queensland schools where the Education Department promotes 'inclusive education' but students talking about Jesus, giving out Christmas cards, or sharing their religious beliefs is considered a form of 'discrimination'. Bill rightly calls this perspective 'rubbish' as it is the Education Department (or school principals) who are discriminating against Christian and other religious talk on the playground.

AJ Philips,

You claim: <<Dictionaries do not determine how we use words; they’re not authorities dictating to us how we must use any given word. Dictionaries merely describe how words are used. That’s it.>>

That's not what a leading American dictionary, The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, states.

This dictionary, in giving an extensive explanation of how words are chosen for the dictionary, stated:

"To be included in a Merriam-Webster dictionary, a word must be used in a substantial number of citations that come from a wide range of publications over a considerable period of time. Specifically, the word must have enough citations to allow accurate judgments about its establishment, currency, and meaning".

So this dictionary pursues a procedure that enables it to make judgments about the "meaning" of words. That's why people who don't know the meaning of words turn to a recommended dictionary to determine meaning.

Yes, OzSpen, and the meanings of words are determined by how we use them. Words do not have intrinsic meaning, as Yuyutsu erroneously believes. Words have usages, and we apply meaning to them. The points you've made don't contradict this.

Dear Spencer,

«That's your assertion, but you provided no evidence to support your claim.»

Indeed I have no evidence so I take your point: perhaps we could give dictionaries the benefit of the doubt that their authors operated from ignorance rather than from malice. What is evident, is that sciencists (those who adore science, as opposed to scientists who do science) use those dictionaries to denigrate the religious.

I know what the dictionaries say, but that doesn't mean they have a clue about religion. What they do is to look at some external expressions of religion, then conclude that this is what religion is about.

To illustrate the point, suppose for example that the dictionaries were written in the Middle-East rather than in Europe, where they see Muslims kneeling forward in prayer, then they could write that religion is the act of kneeling forward and finally conclude that camels are also religious because they kneel forward to drink water.

Take "1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power":

While often done in a religious context, if performed instead for the sake of worldly success, then this is rather an act of business, mere bartering with nothing spiritual about it.

Take "2. A particular system of faith and worship":

That would also be true for the North-Korean worship of "Dear Leader".

Take "3. Pursuit or interest followed with great devotion":

That could be about nearly anything, including even child-molestation.

«That is not a mockery but an affirmation of worship of a superhuman [supernatural] personal God. That should bring one closer to God.»

You and I understand, including from personal experience, how worship can bring one closer to God, but the Oxford dictionary makes no such claims. As far as it is concerned, it could just as well be documenting the exotic behaviour of some stupid weirdos who get nowhere but losing their marbles.

Regarding the article, we both agree with the author. Is there any particular reason you mentioned it now?

Yuyutsu,

Or perhaps we could assume that they are simply doing their jobs by defining words according to their usage?

<<… perhaps we could give dictionaries the benefit of the doubt that their authors operated from ignorance rather than from malice.>>

It is not the job of the authors of dictionaries to make value judgements on what religion should be. The word ‘nice’ used to mean ‘stupid’, but the dictionary definition changed only when our use of the word changed. The authors of dictionaries didn't wake up one day and decide that 'nice' was going to mean 'pleasant'.

Furthermore, those of the Abrahamic religions seem quite happy to use the dictionary definition for ‘religion’, which is hardly surprising given that dictionaries simply describe how words are used.

You are the only one how has a problem with the dictionary definition for ‘religion’ because you don't understand how language works. Is it any wonder the dictionaries ignore you?

<<What is evident, is that sciencists … use those dictionaries to denigrate the religious.>>

These so-called “sciencists” are simply adhering to a collectively agreed-upon definition of ‘religion’. What you don’t seem to have a problem with, funnily enough, is the irnonic use of the word ‘religion’ by theists to denigrate the beliefs of people with whom they disagree (hence the third sense of the Oxford’s definition). Take runner, for example...

<<What [dictionaries] do is to look at some external expressions of religion, then conclude that this is what religion is about.>>

No, they simply reflect the common usage of the word. If you don’t like the way the word is used, then throw the label out when discussing religion with others, or qualify what you are referring to. Words have no intrinsic meaning, after all.

<<… suppose for example that the dictionaries were written … where they see Muslims kneeling forward in prayer, then they could write that religion is the act of kneeling forward and finally conclude that camels are also religious...>>

Not unless Middle-Easterners themselves started applying the term in such a way.

You still don’t get it, do you?