[gnicholas]

> No, once again you've misunderstood or mischaracterized what I'm getting it.

Actually, I'm replying to someone else, not you.

> To put activism grounded in supernatural beliefs/prophets/sacred texts on privileged ground above other forms of activism makes little sense to me.

I can see that! But the Founders felt differently, and they're the ones who wrote the Bill of Rights that, for the most part, still reigns supreme. Unless you've got a workaround that I'm not thinking of (IAAL, FWIW), there's not much point dwelling on the question of whether religion is a type of activism. As I said above: even if it is, it's constitutionally protected.