Right. Just because "religious" might be accurately applied to Mr. cornflake lover, the guy next door shaking his head probably doesn't qualify. In that sense, I believe Constitutional wording strains toward the fervent and zelous variety of "religion." If disbelievers aren't spending a great deal of their time worrying about their non-belief I'd say they're reasonably free of that religion. Until they have to say the post-1954 Pledge, which I think is the crux of the lawsuit. People who don't believe in God are told to lump it, whatever their belief/religion. I don't understand how that can be considered just.
It could be argued that the people bringing the lawsuit are sufficiently preoccupied with the cause to have made it a religion of sorts. That could affect their case if they wanted to insert a substitute for "God", but they're arguing against sanctioning
any religion. What I've read of their arguments makes it sound more like they're trying to protect the general populace from coercion of any kind. I could be wrong.
I would not have survived lawschool.
