- Joined
- Sep 20, 2018
- Messages
- 6,140
- Location
- SL: November RL: DC
- SL Rez
- 2007
- Joined SLU
- December, 2008
- SLU Posts
- 23289
Yes, it is common over here. People conflate religion, spirituality, and christianity all the bleedin time. I use religion as the external components (what rituals and stuff) and spirituality as the internal (beliefs/nonbeliefs). It strikes me as ruling the internal from the external is pretty shallow, the external coming out of what you hold as internal is another story though. Unfortunately the two groups mix so it can be pretty hard to tell people apart. Hopefully that made some sort of sense?Hmm maybe that's an American thing? I think religious is applied to any religion in the UK and not just Christianity. Not sure it extends to Wiccan, but Hinduism and Jainism, and any organized religion. I'd expect someone meaning Christian to say Christian tradition or specific Christian sect here, because multicultural communities in the UK mean a lot of different religions.
It makes me grind my teeth when people say religion when they mean spirituality, because I see a vast gulf between a religion which imposes certain beliefs and rituals upon its adherents and spirituality which allows the individual an awareness of things beyond the material and to choose what to believe and how to apply those beliefs.
I can think of dozens of misused words which are wrongly applied. Ambiguous and ambivalent. Disinterested and uninterested. Alternate and alternative. Less and fewer (growl, growl). Amoral and immoral. And so on.
The question is whether common usage should be the guide (as in the acceptance of literally meaning the opposite) or whether we should resist the dumbing down of our vocabulary by the ignorant or careless. Diphtheria is frequently spelled incorrectly because the accepted pronunciation ignores the first "h".
As I worked as an editor for 10 years, I used to be very pedantic about everything, but then I realized that Shakespeare didn't even spell his name the same way every time, and he used creative and often random spelling for other words too. It was only the introduction of the dictionary which made people anal about spelling, and given the number of words which Shakespeare coined, maybe the language is richer when it evolves and changes quickly. Perhaps the casting in print of English wasn't such a great idea, and a vibrant language needs change and variation to move with the times.
Mixing the two just seem natural to me, although some mixtures are just odd. For example, where one half specifically excludes the other half, like christian wiccans .... wiccans would be 'whatever floats your boat' but usually christians are not so easy going.