> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, but it seems to me that Wallace is actually arguing the point: that these two senses are in fact an artificial dist

> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, but it seems to me that Wallace is actually arguing the point: that these two senses are in fact an artificial distinction, that people are inherently religious, that they are inherently worshipers, at least of a sort. It seems like he is saying that wherever we find our identity is a god that we worship. It is perfectly fine for him to argue that they are equivalent (though I disagree). The issue is relying on the etymology of the word worship to argue that point. I'd also like to clarify that while I disagree with Wallace, the accusation of dishonestly was directed at throw0101a, who made an absurd etymology based argument after it had already been pointed out that such arguments are flawed.