[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.

[lugsoul]

Well, the 11th Circuit says that the SCOTUS says that. They do not say that they agree, only that they are obligated to rule that way when called upon to do so. A concept Moore undoubtedly does not understand. And they do say for purposes of the 1st Amendment - not necessarily that government can "establish" non-religion as a religion, but that the practice of no religion can be freely exercised. If ever confronted with the question of whether non-religion could be established as a religion, the Court may perhaps have to deal with that contradiction.

[lugsoul]

And again, you attempt to ascribe positions to me that are not mine. I fully agree with the legal reasoning in the 11th opinion. They did not decide that the state could establish non-religion as religion, because they were not called upon to pass on that question.