[lugsoul]

That question is fraught with other questions. If you wanted to go by original intent, then it seems clear that the protection of atheism was probably not intended. But the promotion of lack of belief could come into conflict with the free exercise clause. I would not characterize it as "religion" for purposes of the establishment clause.

[inquest]

I would not characterize it as "religion" for purposes of the establishment clause.

You are aware that the 11th Circuit court disagrees with you? From their ruling against Moore:

"The Supreme Court has instructed us that for First Amendment purposes religion includes non-Christian fails and those that do not profess belief in the Judeo-Christian God; indeed, it includes the lack of any faith."

So I see I'm in good company in that I'm not the only one who disagrees with the legal reasoning in this case.