[inquest]

You talk of my "interpretation" of establishment in Islamic countries, but you post nothing to refute or even question it.

Of course I did. Your case regarding their "establishment" was that they passed laws inspired by religious beliefs. I countered that the BOR was inspired by a religious belief, and to underscore it asked you why it is, if lack of belief in a Creator is a religious belief, that belief in a Creator isn't a religious belief? You - who's so quick to get on my case if I don't answer your questions pronto - didn't bother to answer that question.

So, tell me, what level of organized religion do I need to be involved with before my "religious beliefs" rise to the level of "religion."

That question is a total non sequitur upon itself. Religious beliefs are not religion, so they're not going to "rise to the level" of religion. Religion, as I've said a number of times, is a mode of worship, and by logical extension whatever apparatus is built around it.

[lugsoul]

"Religion, as I've said a number of times, is a mode of worship, and by logical extension whatever apparatus is built around it."

And that definition is yours, not the Founders'. You may need an "apparatus" to worship. Not everyone does.

[lugsoul]

Because your premise is flawed - you flip back and forth between claiming that a set of beliefs is not a "religion" to claiming that a lack of beliefs is a "religion." Your question makes no sense. No - the Bill of Rights is not "religious law" no matter how much you want to turn it into religious law. The Sharia is "religious law" - it comes straight from the Koran and the Hadiths. You may not be able to tell the difference, but 99% of the people on the planet can.