Well, the atheists.org people are right that atheism is not a religion -- or, more precisely, that isn't always a religion. But I'll bet you money that, to this guy that brought the case, it's a religion.

Oh, I think I know what you mean (maybe!) in terms of somebody's single-minded, zealous pursuit of, and identification with, an issue. I suppose that for somebody who spends a year sitting in the crown of an old-growth tree or who spends 10 year bicycling around the world multiple times preaching the virtues of solar energy, well, that's their "religion". In those cases, though (which I made up, BTW), a moniker of "religion" wouldn't really do much to confuse the "is-or-isn't-something-a-religion?" question. So I guess that's one reason you always have atheists popping up like Internet Jacks-in-the-Box whenever the label is applid!!

Tony is right that the issue has been done to death, and God help us if alt.atheism should ever be dragged over here! Whenever I verge on a protracted discussion of anything like this, I just point to the a.a intro doc over here which I think does a decent job of summarizing my general thinking (Hell, does a much better job than I can!)

I saw a little news clip of the plaintiff playing back threatening messages on his answering machine. Sure, I'd say he has a major hair up his ass. One thing that is very interesting is that, while the ACLU agreed with the ruling, they had nothing to do with the suit. Did the plaintiff not seek their help? Or did they refuse? Is he the PITA, go-it-alone vengeful paladin we suspect? Mebbe.