I agree. No one here has proposed that level of hyperbole, though I wouldn’t find it unreasonable that there could be some quality said hipster sees in a smoothie that he or she does in fact hold sacred. But, would you maintain that secular humanists don’t hold their values sacred? Are the evangelicals right that atheists shouldn’t use the word “good” because without (their) God the term is meaningless and nothing is forbidden? What word should Jefferson have used instead when he wrote, “The most sacred of the duties of government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens”?
That is an interesting definition, but yes, “religion” is a porous and hard to define category whose meaning changes over time and from place to place.
Nor am I. Luckily cultural relativism doesn’t enter into it. It works just as well if you get a bunch of people together trying to precisely define common words like “salad,” or identify consistent differences between a “bread” and a “cake,” or between a “bag” and a “box.” I really did mean that all human categories are porous.
