It is interesting that it was suggested in the last post's comments that an author perhaps associated "God" with the biblical God when noting he is now an agnostic. This doesn't follow. One need not be a deist to find the biblical God in some ways dubious and still believe in a God. But, some do not see the difference. This is true even if the author may have a more nuanced position than this. It is something many believe is true -- this limited thinking is sadly (if predictably) a consistent thread in many areas.
[Note: The comment to this post is correct -- I put "agnostic" in the title but then originally said "athiest" in the above paragraph. This probably can be said to be telling, but whatever, it's a slip-up. Honestly, many who I reference below don't find "agnostic" somehow so much better than "atheist," though some would accept it as a sort of wariness that warrants respect. Likewise, some -- me in some cases -- find atheism has a sense of true belief that is downright ironic on some level.]
I should also try to determine how many think you need "God" to have "religion." I simply think not, but I just passed a book that dismissed the Supreme Court's broad definition (see conscientious objector cases) as making the word meaningless. I don't have the title, but can speak generally since again we are talking about general assumptions here. The book noted that the Founders thought religion -- which at one point the author suggests is belief in something above yourself -- fundamental for society's well being. One early public official was cited noting that there are various things that society needs -- morality, patriotism, kindness, etc. -- that the law itself cannot really compel. Religion fits in here.
This is true enough and sometimes ignored by those who cite the First Amendment as a means to protect us from religious power. (The book cites justices like Stevens concerned about the divisiveness of religion ... their real concern, given they tend to belong to some Christian sect, is the divisiveness of state uniting with religion ... the "they hate religion" crowd elide over this central difference.) But, the value again is just that -- one that the state cannot truly compel. Thus, the First Amendment gives the choice -- and this applies to those who define "religion" more narrowly" -- to the individual. A choice of "nonreligion," if the term makes sense, is a free exercise matter.
[The First Amendment addresses two at times conflicting issues in establishment and free exercise. "By pairing the Free Exercise Clause with the Establishment Clause, our system strikes a careful balance -- ensuring that religion and government can coexist, but taking care that neither can overpower the other." But, they are interrelated -- hands off here furthers free exercise.]
A lecture on some public education channel last night in fact underlined Roger Williams' (and others) argument that attempts to force things are counterproductive. Seriously, is the U.S. really not a religious country? In fact, the troublesome power of the fundamentalist Christian right in this country is counterproductive to those who truly honor the Christian religion. A religion with precepts that many more "secular" souls can honor (see those who honor Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.) without the overkill. Without those who want to inhibit free exercise, ironically taking the old fashion establishment Catholic (see medieval times) of making "sins" the same as "crimes."
The Seeger case, no not singer, held that conscientious objector statutes should be interpreted to apply to those who have a set of beliefs on the same level as God.* This matches the book's argument as to the role the Framers (to the extent their more limited ideas in this area matters ... Justice Story, about of their generation, thought mainly Christians were protected) gave to religion in society. A person can have a set of beliefs that do not arise from "God" (though some atheists want to define the term so broadly, who knows?) but still compel them to follow a certain path that amounts to more than mere individual whim.
Likewise, there is a general belief that if you don't believe in God, you are somehow a bad person or not trustworthy. The fact that many who claim to believe in God are just that is ignored, somehow -- experience notwithstanding -- belief in God, probably a specific one, is necessary not just for "religion," but morality and good government overall. This is the unfortunate, but reasonably consistent, conclusion from the book's arguments. One is reminded of those who dislike people who criticize el jefe too strongly, even though they know deep down he isn't worth our respect. The image of someone we should trust, however, is deemed somehow necessary for good order or whatever.
[Take a glance at Justice Douglas' concurring opinion in Seeger, which references the "irreligious." The word has a general meaning akin to "Christian," which really has little to do with actual belief and following of particular sect per se. But, the connotation is clear -- you have to follow some "religion" to be a good person. If not, you are a reprobate of some sort. And, even though you might only go to mass on Christmas and Easter, that is enough. Mere tokenism is enough here.]
Not that, as I have said before, what most think of "religion" in many cases is not just that. A means to translate individual whim, beliefs and drives and make them "sacred" and untouchable because they are God sent. If "religion" means this respect is only given to those who believe in some God figure -- and often only the sort that seems at least quasi-biblical [Scalia's God, perhaps] -- it is a dubious thing. But, just as Madison and others broadly spoke of a freedom of "conscience," this is far from necessary.
I reaffirm that I don't know what the author really believes, but provide some fodder for thought on a reasonable possibility.
---
* The ruling was not about atheists per se, but -- in an interesting discussion written by conservative leaning Justice Tom Clark -- the opinion defines "Supreme Being" rather broadly. A taste:
[T]he proposition that in no field of human endeavor has the tool of language proved so inadequate in the communication of ideas as it has in dealing with the fundamental questions of man's predicament in life, in death or in final judgment and retribution. This fact makes the task of discerning the intent of Congress in using the phrase "Supreme Being" a complex one. Nor is it made the easier by the richness and variety of spiritual life in our country. Over 250 sects inhabit our land. Some believe in a purely personal God, some in a supernatural deity; others think of religion as a way of life envisioning as its ultimate goal the day when all men can live together in perfect understanding and peace.
To sound a bit "legal," I take a common law, compare like to like, approach here. "Religion" (and "God" perhaps) can be understood by how it is generally understood by the public, but not limited to lesser aspects, including belief in a biblical God. It's useful to have one's own guidebook -- picking from all over the place proves unworkable as a practicable path of human endeavor after awhile -- but let's keep a certain bit of perspective all the same.