This discussion, and the language policing that goes along with it, became tedious decades ago. The simple fact is that you guys are the ones arguing for narrow definitions of words that in fact are not defined narrowly in common usage. There's no consistency in it, and it has nothing to do with clarity. The organizing principle is that if you associate a word with religion, you don't want to use it, and you don't like when anyone else does either. You can ignore that obvious reality but I promise you, most people see it.
So if I say I prefer not to use a word because I find it ambiguous, that equates to "language police." No overreacting there!
if you maintain that there is no need to avoid it and it is not ambiguous to you, is that you acting as the language police?