Which means that neither the IRS or SCOTUS ruled consistent with what the Founders had in mind a religion.
In 2014 the Supreme Court ruled in Greece v. Galloway that city councils and other government bodies may begin meetings with “invocations” that involve sectarian prayers.
In 2016 the Satanic Temple asked Scottsdale, Arizona to open a city council meeting with the following prayer:
“Let us stand now, unbowed and unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful minds in darkened times. Let us embrace the Luciferian impulse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge and dissipate our blissful and comforting delusions of old.
"Let us demand that individuals be judged for their concrete actions, not their fealty to arbitrary social norms and illusory categorizations. Let us reason our solutions with agnosticism in all things, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true.
"Let us stand firm against any and all arbitrary authority that threatens the personal sovereignty of One or All. That which will not bend must break, and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise. It is Done. Hail Satan.” - https://theconversation.com/what-the-satanic-temple-is-and-why-its-opening-a-debate-about-religion-131283
besides rejecting the supernatural (including beliefs as rebirth, karma, afterlife found in Buddhism if not fundamentally required to "a Buddist"), the ST is a new satirical anti-religion org. (what passes for doctrine is mainly what they are not - religious, plus a snippet of largely ambiguous morality) acting like a parody of religion (including in proffered prayers) as the antithesis of it while claiming its legal status.
"You don't even have to be a Satanist, you can just be a strong ally who believes in the political and secular actions without being super stoked about all the aesthetic aspects." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Temple#Schisms_and_secession)
What then, would prevent a CPAC group of atheists from forming a church (actually, atheism has been considered a religion) , of a Leftist equivalent? An activist political club with a building and a anti-religious web page, arguing they are to be treated as a religion?
While
"religion typically concerns “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death.” Social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not “religious” beliefs protected by Title VII . - https://www.cbp.gov/faqs/what-religion-under-title-viiit would not be hard for creative devotees such in are part of the above to develop a broader inclusion that qualifies as pertaining to “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death.”
Obviously, if the Founders provided the 1st Amendment then they had a concept in mind, and it can only be imagined that they would overall accept an anti-theist political satire org as a religion as well as any other performing arts org. As well as the likes of Scientology.
However, "original intent" has come to mean what liberals contrive the Founders overall would think if baptized in their ethos. If they even care about original intent. And or "religion" is basically defined as having any beliefs that one "religiously" observes - occupying the position and force a religion would (see below) even if secular, which is so broad any devotee of anything can claim religious status. Welcome to the church of reproductive rights or the church of Climategeddon, etc. I am sure we can think of apostles and saints of such.
The latter "church" is based upon scientific discoveries upon which dire consequences are forecast, which are not proven, but devotees are motivated by faith/confidence in the dire consequences, while myself for example, am not arguing global warming is not somewhat of a reality - as it ought to be in the light of the last hundreds years (30 billion bombs alone), but I think God over-engineered the earth to handle such, and with many benefits to warming, though adaptations must be made.
However, in schooling, students are basically compelled to affirm Climategeddon, as well as such Leftish ideology as that gender is fluid, and sodomy is normal, healthy, and to be explored and encouraged (contrary to science) to an opine otherwise means being denigrated with the homophobic slur.
Of course, since atheism (a position of faith) is effectually taught in gov. schools, then under the premise that any beliefs that one "religiously" observes constitutes religion, then then Christians could contend for their teachings on special creation be taught along side atheistic science, which only teaches natural means as an explanation for an exceedingly vast, systematically ordered universe, exquisitely finely tuned for life with intricate astounding complexity (which discoveries I.D. proponent cite).
The early Supreme Court pronouncements on the meaning of religion generally defined religion very narrowly in terms of a God or Creator. For example, in 1890 the Court stated that "[t]he term 'religion' has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will." ' 24 >In 1961, however, in Tor- caso v. Watkins, 2 5 the Supreme Court abandoned the use of a belief in God as the touchstone for religious belief, when it invalidated a Maryland law which required all public office holders to declare a belief in the existence of God. 26...
In United States v. Seeger, 28 the Court interpreted the Universal Military Training and Service Act which exempted from combat persons who objected to participation "by reason of religious training and belief." 2 9 The Act defined "religious training and belief" as "an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but [excluding] essentially political, sociologi- cal or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code."3 0
..The Court ruled that "Congress, in using the expression 'Supreme Being' rather than the designation 'God,' was merely clar- ifying the meaning of religious training and belief so as to embrace all religions and to exclude essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views." 3 3 The Court then held that the test for "belief in a relation to a Supreme Being is whether a given belief that is sin- cere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its pocessor par- allel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption." '34....
DEFINING "RELIGION" The requirement of a comprehensive belief system addressing fundamental questions provides a good first criterion for the con- cept of religion ..Dean Choper also argues that "many comprehensive beliefs are not necessarily religious." 4 5 He illustrates his overinclusiveness ar- gument by suggesting that "atheistic Marxism may be fairly de- scribed as comprehensive because it supplies answers to profound questions and denies the significance of other issues."' 46 One might apply this overinclusiveness objection to the proposed ap- proach, by further claiming that a philosophy such as Marxism gives rise to duties of conscience in its adherents...,
the purpose of the religion clauses-to ensure religious liberty for all-requires an interpretation that will encompass the religious impulses in persons, whether these im- pulses are expressed in the form of a traditional religion, or in the form of a unique, unstructured, personal religion. - Defining Religion in the First Amendment: A Functional Approach Cornell Law Review, Volume 74, Issue 3 March 1989 Ben Clements
These Lost souls Stand with a Fist in the Face of the Creator of the Universe and
Proclaim their Independence and yet they
Have No Guarantee of the Next Breath.
.
Sad
Pathetic
Blind