[jrm4]

Not purely. The meaning of "religion" varies greatly across both time and space, and it would be difficult to argue that it is always (or even often) something like "pure choice."

It frequently carries a cultural component such that the law sees fit to treat it like other arguably immutable identity type things, which seems correct to me. Though, it is complicated.

[djrogers]

> The meaning of "religion" varies greatly across both time and space

Ok, I was kinda sorta with you until the second time you decided on the ‘flexibility of words’ defense… honestly, if you’d just gone with:

“using a charged term like prejudice to describe disagreement (even when distastefully communicated) over lifestyle choices dilutes the word, and minimizes what it means to someone who experiences true prejudice every day”

or something like that, I think you’d have gotten your point across without the downvotes and discussion.

But maybe that’s not what you meant, and maybe there would still be discussion because what I said ain’t necessarily true - it just sounds hard to argue with.

[jrm4]

You say that like the downvotes and discussion are a bad thing; I'm under no illusion about how people are going to take it about half the time I bring up race.

Last I checked, I can't trade these hacker news points for cash and prizes. :)

[ncmncm]

Please don't ever stop. We need your voice here.